# Air Canada ups its fuel surcharge by $80 to $120



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

News1130 - ALL NEWS RADIO.

So a $400 round trip between Vancouver and Edmonton will go up to $480....

A $1100 round trip between Vancouver and Tokyo would be $1220....

Driving is still a less destructive way of getting around, even more so with trains and buses.

Better yet just stay at home and use the internet.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I still think the train is an extremely efficient and pleasant way to travel. Why can't we have bullet-trains like Japan, Korea and Europe?

But as far as Air travel goes, Bring Back the Zeppelin! Especially for air freight, but for passenger travel as well it's an incredibly efficient and relatively quick mode of transport. One accident that killed 36 people seven decades ago shouldn't stop a whole industry. Seriously; learn from it and move on.

Cheers

Cheers


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> It's really pathetic that we don't have much better train systems in North America for both people and freight. They are long long overdue.


It's also pathetic that the cost of travel on our out-dated trains is so stupidly high. Factor in the length of time it takes to get anywhere and there is very little value in going this route. Yes there is the environmental route but usually the enviro factors are the first to be discarded when considering travel/vacations and such.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Macified said:


> It's also pathetic that the cost of travel on our out-dated trains is so stupidly high. Factor in the length of time it takes to get anywhere and there is very little value in going this route. Yes there is the environmental route but usually the enviro factors are the first to be discarded when considering travel/vacations and such.


Taking the car or bus takes longer (you obviously can't compare it to airplanes except for very short hops) and compared to Europe, the train here is a lot cheaper.
Not as nice, fast or convenient mind you, but in Europe you really pay for that.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

> Air Canada ups its fuel surcharge by $80 to $120


I'm always surprised that Air Canada is allowed to do that.
In my mind it's clearly false and misleading advertizing tagging on a fuel surcharge to an advertized price. 
No ther mode of transportation does that, neither trains, nor busses, nor taxis.
How come Air Canada and ome of the other airlines gets away with that? Not all airlines do that.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Air Canada seems determined to kill itself. Stories of their poor quality of service are legend, and now a tripling of the fuel surcharge? In a country that has a lot of oil revenues???

Oh I don't think so.

Onto the subject of bullet trains -- it's a mystery to me why Canada doesn't have them, as they would be PERFECT for traversing the very long patches that separate the main cities of this beautiful country. An exclusive "fast lane" track should have been built along the existing routes a long time ago.

A 200 km/h train would cut the Vancouver-Toronto run from three days to one, and (should) cost less to boot. My father was an civil engineer who was involved in many rail projects so it's kind of an interest of mine. I think it's a great opportunity and some of the oil revenues this country generates should be used to pay for it. The additional business and tourist use would probably "pay it back" in under a decade.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What if one has already paid for their ticket and will travel next week?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Airbus state that their A380 consumes fuel at the rate of less than 3 L/100 km per passenger
> 
> Passenger airplanes averaged 4.8 L/100 km per passenger (1.4 MJ/passenger-km) (49 passenger-miles per gallon) in 1998.[citation needed] Note that on average 20% of seats are left unoccupied. Aircraft efficiencies are improving: Between 1960 and 2000 there has been a 70% overall fuel efficiency gain.
> 
> ...


It really depends on distance, stops and starts ( especially trains ).

Getting land transport as much electrified as possible and moving aircraft to bio-fuel ( they already are ) and then hydrogen would be a practical progression over 20-30 years.

We really do not have the density or weather for high tech trains tho LRT is sadly lacking.

No reason for airlines not to pass on increased costs.

My biggest annoyance is the blocking of city electrics by MOT and insurance companies. 

There IS hope....










BTW that drop INCLUDES aviation fuel.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> What if one has already paid for their ticket and will travel next week?


I assume once you have paid for the ticket that's it.
I have two tickets to Europe next week, almost 50% of the total price was for fuel surcharge and taxes - this whole scenario of tacking on surcharges left right and centre is getting ridiculous.

I'm not saying the airlines shouldn't recover their cost and make a profit - but don't quote $499.- fares when the total ends up being double that.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

When my son flew to London, England, last Sept., his flight was cancelled at the last minute. He had to fly southeast to Halifax to get a flight, even though we are the closest point in North America from England. Still, they gave him a credit of $100 ........ not for his troubles, but for the reality that to fly from Halifax, albeit it a longer flight, costs $100 less than to fly a shorter distance from St.John's.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think average for cars is only 1.3 persons and at least planes don't idle much 

I suggest that airlines could get to carbon neutral faster than almost any other industry as 

a) a biofuel solution is straight forward

b) they have the dollars to move the tech and the well heeled users.

c) switchgrass or other source needs to go commercial 



> The joint USDA-ARS and Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources study also found greenhouse gas emissions from cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass were 94 percent lower than estimated greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline production.


Biofuel: Major Net Energy Gain From Switchgrass-based Ethanol

I have to guess it's getting close now to presenting a cost savings over fossil if commercial quantities were readily available. ( $126 a barrel today for oil !!!! )
Since this is of interest to the military ( the US military is the largest user on the planet ) then near carbon neutral aircraft fuels could come online relatively quickly.

From what I've read - biodiesel is currently in the $140 per barrel equivalent to get it to be cost effective ( leaving out subsidies ).

So with tech moving bio-fuels cost down and speculation moving oil towards $200 on futures market.........

You can bet airlines are seriously motivated in bio-fuel direction.
Oil will only go up.
Bio will only go down.
Planes cannot get all that much more efficient - it seems lowering fuel costs by way of nonfood bio is the big carrot for them.

Algae produced bio-fuel - the holy grail for airlines.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MasterBlaster said:


> It's really pathetic that we don't have much better train systems in North America for both people and freight. They are long long overdue.


Tell me about it. Why can't I efficiently and affordably get from Kitchener to Toronto via a train. Its ridiculous.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

For long distance travel, I don't think I would want to be going at 200km/hr along a track between Toronto and Vancouver in the middle of winter with ice on the tracks, blizzards, and avalanches in the mountains.

Veggie powered space travel is the only way to go. Can you imagine a 20 minute flight Toronto to Vancouver! In the future, humans will look back at the gas guzzler airplanes that we are currently using.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You can't get affordable and fast service between Kitchener and Toronto because most people opted for the car and the inevitable sprawl which results from that lifestyle choice (just try efficiently servicing a low-density urban area with public transit of any sort and you'll see how pointless it really is - all you'll do is bleed money 'til you're broke)... the other reason is that we don't have the visionary leaders we need to tackle a massive infrastructure job like high-speed trains. We needed those leaders years ago, actually. They never appeared. Ontario dropped the ball. The municipalities dropped the ball; we all looked the other way. What's happening now is the bitterness of the blame game. Our economy is suffering, in part, for the stupidity and shallowness of our past choices.

We don't have that amazing train service because we were ignoring what was coming. Now that the lunacy of our choice not to choose is all too apparent, we have no one to blame but ourselves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: I'm grateful that boneheaded provincial and federal governments didn't even try to re=produce their other unmitigated disasters on high-speed rail lines.

You greenies should be delighted to see air travel become unaffordable. Bio-fuels are a canard--they still produce dreaded CO2. And now that the gross pillaging of carbon cedits by the World Bank is being exposed, that false opportunity will soon close its doors as well. Carbon credits to Tata for building a coal-fired plant in the heart of India? You betcha!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"you greenies..." _sigh._ I guess I should expect no less from you. I was waiting for you to chime in on your transportation strategy, such as it is (I think it goes along the lines of 'I don't care who pays for it, as long as it isn't me... I might even use it sometime but I never asked for it so that's hunky dory').

Mr. Mayor, I guess we can add tax-averse folks like MF as more reasons that we're getting the kind of transit solutions we deserve.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course I have a transportation strategy. User pays for transporting him/herself to wherever they wqnt to go. If there's not enough demand to travel from Toronto to Kitchener by rail, then building that line isn't gointg to create some sort of miraculous train renaissance. I can travel between London and Toronto more cheaply by car than I can by train, even with rail travel heavily subsidized. I can also travel on my own schedule.



> we're getting the kind of transit solutions we deserve.


We don't "deserve" transportation systems--we merely purchase tickets. I would say that with the type of competition-killing allowed on behalf of the TTC and its patrons (shutting down private bus service on Lakeshore Boulevard, for example) Toronto probably _does_ deserve the TTC.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> "I might even use it sometime but I never asked for it so that's hunky dory').


You're right that one day while I was ill I took a VIA train and languished in front of a picture window...but I never asked for it, so that's hunky dory.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Current and previous administrations can't even decide on a simple rail link to Pearson Int'l from downtown COTU and you guys are talking about a *sustainable* high-speed rail link to KW and beyond? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Need we mention the Sheppard Subway line? Pure dead brilliant.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Had the Sheppard line been what it was supposed to be, it would have been very useful and likely more successful.... it was supposed to go deep into the heart of Scarborough, where TTC service is pathetic at best. (And possibly into Etobicoke, though given that I've always lived east of Yonge, I'm much fuzzier about all those west-end happenings.) It was also supposed to be accompanied by another line along Eglinton or Lawrence... 

It's a mere fraction of what it could have been....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ain't that the truth... what a blunder.

MF: the people do indeed buy tickets... but they deserve better than that. Alas, there's a failure of imagination - a condition like a common cold, it would seem - and so all we _can_ do is buy tickets - and gripe.

I'd love to see what the GTA would look like if we also stopped paying for the building and maintenance of roads... after all, not a great deal of competition there, either. Chaos, anyone?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I'd love to see what the GTA would look like if we also stopped paying for the building and maintenance of roads...


See it yourself! Just look out the window and behold the pothole strewn mess so beautifully managed by the same people at the COTU who you would like to see building a high-tech rail line. Embarrassing, anyone?

But as you can see, transponders and tolls are quickly replacing so-called free travel to bill road users directly. I think the more appropriate question will soon be: "What will the roads look like if people stop using them." It's something you should embrace, since people will feel so upset by paying directly for road travel that they will flock to stand in crowded buses drinking in deeply of fellow passengers' body odour while being flung to and fro as they fall further and further behind schedule.

Ahh, Sonal! The Sheppard Subway line was _supposed_ to press onward, deeper and deeper into the barren heart of Scarborough as it encounters lower and lower population densities--perhaps a quick pay-off by the folks at the Scarborough Town Centre to bring extra customers to that tourist attraction. 

Just like the high-speed rail link to Kitchener (well it would have gone to Kitchener but you people don't pay enough taxes, so we only built it to the Stone Road Mall in Guelph, but if you take a little bus it's almost like taking the train to Kitchener...and so what if nobody really uses it, it's green blast you!).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_See it yourself! Just look out the window and behold the pothole strewn mess so beautifully managed by the same people at the COTU who you would like to see building a high-tech rail line. Embarrassing, anyone?

But as you can see, transponders and tolls are quickly replacing so-called free travel to bill road users directly. I think the more appropriate question will soon be: "What will the roads look like if people stop using them." It's something you should embrace, since people will feel so upset by paying directly for road travel that they will flock to stand in crowded buses drinking in deeply of fellow passengers' body odour while being flung to and fro as they fall further and further behind schedule._

Transponders aren't replacing roads quickly enough, though, are they? The streetcars and busses are still sharing the roads with hundreds of thousands of cars. Nor will people flock to an already maxed-out transit system that can't even manage itself without strike threats every two weeks. No one presently commuting to work in a vehicle will wish to drink deeply of other people's body odour on cattle car busses and subways - but what will drive them to that lovely scenario will be the crippling costs of owning, operating and storing personal vehicles - and that will be a much larger and more immediate factor than any anguished dithering over which highway system will become user-pay next.

Any way you look at it, it's a challenge to the GTA... similar challenges are facing cities across North America, actually, although ours is in a particularly stinky situation.

Say we go at the problem your way - kill the TTC, sell off its routes and hardware to the highest bidder. The immediate effect would be that private operators would ditch all but the most profitable routes (not a bad idea in itself, arguably, but significant chunks of the masses will be aghast at the results). Another effect, sure as shinola, will be widely varying standards of passenger safety, fleet maintenance and replacement schedules, standards for operators, etc. Will the public be quick to embrace these bracing changes? Or will they be horrified the moment a privately-owned bus has a catastrophic brake failure and several passengers are killed?

I'm betting the public will find an appetite for public transit they never imagined they had. But that means they won't soon forget how badly the TTC manages itself, how poorly it serves the very people it's supposed to move around this great, ungainly metropolis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't want the TTC privatized--I want it kept as a monument to the ingenuity of government eggheads.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Nice line, but I don't buy it for a second... not from the likes of you, my doctrinaire friend.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

krs said:


> Taking the car or bus takes longer (you obviously can't compare it to airplanes except for very short hops) and compared to Europe, the train here is a lot cheaper. Not as nice, fast or convenient mind you, but in Europe you really pay for that.


The ride on the airplane is faster - but then you have to show up early enough to find a parking space in those crazy city sized garages at Pearson, then wait an hour and a half for as security check (and you can't bring water because Al Qaida may use it as a weapon), then you board a plane, and wait a half hour until Air Canada determines that they can not replace all of the defective parts from their crummy ancient airplane, so they put you on another. Six hours after you left home, the plane finally takes off, landing a half hour later at Dorval, while your luggage ends up in Frisco. Then you have to trek from Dorval to actual civilization, only to return two days later in order to retrieve the luggage. Then they smack on a special "fuel surcharge" because the executives want to buy even more expensive lunches...

Our nation was built by the railroads - and we need to return to it. Pretty much all of our problems have been caused by giving up on railroads. The skies are polluted because the planes leave their exhaust in the most sentitive parts of our atmosphere; and companies have to go to trucks, clogging up the highways and causing all kinds of surface pollution, because really, the trains can't move product from one place to another in a timely manner. Of course, glad handling politicians get in the was of real progress...

Getting to Europe could have been better, but not only did they give up on the Concorde, they gave up on efficient transportation altogether - mostly because the big aircraft companies don't want to spend any real money on modern technology.

Besides, why do people want to go to Europe anyways? It smells weird and it is full of Europeans...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Quite apart from the smelly Europeans bit, I agree with you... especially the observation of how brutal jet travel is on the earth's upper atmosphere and the fact that air travel is becoming less and less convenient owing to security-related delays and the related hell of getting to and from airports via less glamourous transportation methods, most of which involve those dang cars again.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> The ride on the airplane is faster - but then you have to show up early enough to find a parking space in those crazy city sized garages at Pearson


Ride the Rocket!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Couple of good lines in this thread Max. I particularly liked this one:



El Max said:


> What's happening now is the bitterness of the blame game. Our economy is suffering, in part, for the stupidity and shallowness of our past choices.


Nailed it. We're all to blame. I've known almost all my life that we were making the wrong choices on the environment, people much smarter than me have been continuously saying so since I was a child in the '60s and '70s. Anyone who actually worried about urban sprawl, auto expansion, depleted resources and pollution in the cheap gas-chuggin' '80s was seen as a potentially dangerous lunatic by most and was treated as a laughing stock. But those whacko's were right all along.










Regarding air travel, here is a realistic look at the pros and cons of modern airships. Not a panacea, but certainly usable.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Ride the Rocket!


Kind of difficult from The Hammer, seeing that there is no practical way from here to there. Considering that three quarters of a million people life in The Hammer - we still do not have real GO train service. We get four cheesy trains a day, all at crazy hours. For years they keep saying that they can't afford it - but if the politicians had taken all of the luncheon money, and all of the money wasted on consultants reports that they never used - we could have a gold plated, diamond studded train leaving The Hammer every three minutes...

The Hammer is considering bringing back streetcars - the same system that they ripped up in the late 40's. They can't seem to decide between special smog producing express buses and some kind of LRT junk. They just need to do what the TTC did, regular streetcars on the busy routes, and forget all of the "high tech" stuff that will never work. Nothing complex or elegant ever works in Hamilton. The city used to be well connected to surrounding communities by a system of inter-urban radial lines, but the politicians ate that money as well. But we do have the nice new expressway that took sixty years to build - the most expensive six miles of road ever built in Canada...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Kind of difficult from The Hammer, seeing that there is no practical way from here to there. Considering that three quarters of a million people life in The Hammer - we still do not have real GO train service. We get four cheesy trains a day, all at crazy hours. For years they keep saying that they can't afford it - but if the politicians had taken all of the luncheon money, and all of the money wasted on consultants reports that they never used - we could have a gold plated, diamond studded train leaving The Hammer every three minutes...
> 
> The Hammer is considering bringing back streetcars - the same system that they ripped up in the late 40's. They can't seem to decide between special smog producing express buses and some kind of LRT junk. They just need to do what the TTC did, regular streetcars on the busy routes, and forget all of the "high tech" stuff that will never work. Nothing complex or elegant ever works in Hamilton. The city used to be well connected to surrounding communities by a system of inter-urban radial lines, but the politicians ate that money as well. But we do have the nice new expressway that took sixty years to build - the most expensive six miles of road ever built in Canada...


Back when I was a kid growing up in Hamilton (when did they start calling it "The Hammer"?) I always wondered why they called it the HSR — Hamilton Street Railway, because the street railway had been ripped up 2 decades earlier. I don't know if that's the name for transit in Hamilton anymore, it was I think when I last visited in the '90s.

LRT (light rail transit) is just about the best bang for the buck rapid transit option going. The cost per kilometre is much lower compared to subways or the ridiculously expensive Skytrain we have in Vancouver. But for it to be real rapid transit it's got to be separated from other vehicles on the road, which means taking away lanes from motorists, which means ain't gonna happen without pissing off a lot of voters.

But if Hamilton is looking at LRT it should go for it. Streetcars stuck in traffic as in Toronto are not a realistic option.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But those whacko's were right all along.


To some degree. But most of their opinions are still "whacko."

Edit: SOME of their opinions, not most.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce;675437}Streetcars stuck in traffic as in Toronto are not a realistic option.[/QUOTE said:


> This goes both ways. Sometimes streetcars block more traffic than they are alleviating. Sometimes they move more people than the cars they block.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ahh, Sonal! The Sheppard Subway line was _supposed_ to press onward, deeper and deeper into the barren heart of Scarborough as it encounters lower and lower population densities--perhaps a quick pay-off by the folks at the Scarborough Town Centre to bring extra customers to that tourist attraction.


See, I'm thinking of the people who already live in Scarborough, and face a 2-2.5 hour commute into downtown by TTC.... taking the bus to the RT station, the RT to the subway station, then riding down half the Bloor/Danforth line to Yonge and then grabbing the Yonge subway down isn't exactly convenient. 

So the option becomes expensive rent downtown and convenient travel, or cheap rent in Scarborough and a pain-in-the-ass commute. 

The heart of Scarborough is not so barren.... a lot of Toronto's affordable housing is in the heart of Scarborough.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The rising cost of fuel will ensure that people will pay top dollar to be as close to work, and to amenities, as possible. Which translates to a guaranteed premium paid for real estate in those instances where those two concerns are nicely balanced. Whether you rent or own, you'll be dinged.

On the other hand, Sonal: "convenient travel" for those who rent/buy downtown may not last very long at all... we can after all expect more and more motor vehicles, cyclists, bladers, boarders and pedestrians sharing the same road network. I am in east-central Toronto - to go to west-central Toronto can take an awfully long time, depending on the day and the hour I have to do that trip. It's getting more and more chaotic any way you slice it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: time for you take up a more Earth-friendly occupation.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Do you think so, MF? I dunno... I'm one of the fortunates whose commute is approximately 15 minutes one way and involves precious few major arterials - certainly no 400 series highways. Now, if you want to talk about professions and how they tax the earth, I'd be open to such a discussion - in another thread, perhaps.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mine takes no commute at all, you horrible man.tptptptp


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hmmmm.... why am I horrible, I wonder? And the tongue smiley too.... oh dear, you've descended into something I had thought beneath you.

Congratulations for telecommuting, however. Good for you!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This goes both ways. Sometimes streetcars block more traffic than they are alleviating. Sometimes they move more people than the cars they block.


I always remember an ad campaign in Vancouver from the '90s trying to convince people to use transit. It showed a downtown street clogged with rush hour traffic in one picture. The next pic shows the same street virtually empty with a couple of buses on it. The reality is that private vehicles containing the average of one person contribute a lot more to clogging up people's commuting journey than do transit vehicles holding 40 or 80 people.

In Vancouver a couple of the main routes have transit only lanes during rush hour. Also buses in Vancouver have the legal right of way when changing lanes — the law says that drivers have to give way to a bus signalling a lane change. This means that buses can move along a few streets faster than some of the cars on the same street. We need more of this, in my humble opinion. If it was up to me, every street that has a bus route on it would have bus only lanes during rush hours.

With the price of gas going up rapidly, the demand for transit is exploding everywhere. We need to do all we can to accommodate that demand, although if our society had listened to some of the "whackos" we would have already been planning for this growth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I just don't see the demand for transit increasing. More of demand that people demand transit.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Some of our many modern transit and pollution problems may be alleviated with the onset of alt fuel technologies that are greener - provided we can ramp up the economies of scale in a rapid and comprehensive manner - but these partial solutions won't happen fast enough to avert the oil crunch and the slowly emerging public anxiety (like a surfacing neurosis) over the inherent problems of the combustion engine in the post-millennial, 6 billion-plus world. We're probably going to have to get over our collective nausea regarding mass transit and its place in our lives.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

France has a leg up on it all combining high density, nuclear and electricity based mass transit.

Emerging EV transport will be a cinch for them as their grid and capacity can be expanded.
They are also exceptionally well positioned to add wind and solar and even tidal ( from Portugal perhaps) to the expansion framework.

We COULD have been close if we had kept nuclear up and moved to LRT two decades ago instead of just being in the "planning stages".

High tech rail is marginal in Canada except perhaps the Montreal Windsor corridor.

But with the dysfunctional federal/provincial/municipal ...so called...governors ...we don't.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I just don't see the demand for transit increasing. More of demand that people demand transit.


MF say - "Me no see transit demand when look around house ... where this transit demand you speak of?"

Gas prices send surge of riders to mass transit - NY Times



> “In almost every transit system I talk to, we’re seeing very high rates of growth the last few months,” said William W. Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association.
> 
> “It’s very clear that a significant portion of the increase in transit use is directly caused by people who are looking for alternatives to paying $3.50 a gallon for gas.”


GO's ridership growing faster than service - TO Star



> As fast as GO Transit expands its bus and train service, ridership on many routes appears to be growing faster.
> 
> This year GO was expecting about a 4- to 5 per cent increase in riders. But March ridership numbers released to GO's board of directors this week showed average weekday ridership increased 7.5 per cent over the same month last year.


Edit: couldn't find the story but in Vancouver the increase in ridership in the last year was 10%. Believe me, it's quite often maxed - I took a commuter bus out to the ferry on Sunday afternoon and it was full.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> On the other hand, Sonal: "convenient travel" for those who rent/buy downtown may not last very long at all... we can after all expect more and more motor vehicles, cyclists, bladers, boarders and pedestrians sharing the same road network. I am in east-central Toronto - to go to west-central Toronto can take an awfully long time, depending on the day and the hour I have to do that trip. It's getting more and more chaotic any way you slice it.


I used to be in North East Toronto, and have moved progressively south and central... now I'm in South Central Toronto. Where I grew up, I could drive to most places very conveniently, or take forever to get anywhere by TTC. (At one place I was working, the difference was 20 minute by car, versus 2 hours or more by TTC--and this is all within Metro Toronto.)

Now, I can to just about walk anywhere in downtown core in 10-30 minutes, which is by far my favourite way to get around, rain, snow or shine. If for some reason, I can't walk, I can drive, or if I had a bike, I could bike. Or I can hop on the TTC, I can grab a cab, etc. For most of my day-to-day stuff (groceries, errands, entertainment, etc.) walking is usually my most convenient option anyway, though none of my choice are a hassle. (My work is all over the city, and I'm frequently carting stuff, so that is the main reason I still drive.)

The point is, I have so many more options for travel here than I did where I grew up, and they are all convenient. So if the roads are clogged, I can take the TTC. If the TTC is stopped, I can walk, cutting through alleys and the PATH and parking lots as needed. If I started walking and I realize that I'm running out of time, I can hop in a cab, I can jump on the subway at another point, etc. I can adjust according to current conditions. So the chaos can be mitigated. 

But out in the heart of Scarborough, you drive.... unless you can't afford a car, in which case you suffer on the TTC. The options all suck.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Those super bullet trains that they have in Japan and Germany etc are sitting on magnetic tracks. They require an entirely new infrastructure to be built, one that would be in Canada immensely huge to construct.


TTC is pretty weak. I think there is major corruption in that organization. They pull in 100's of millions in revenue each month and there never seems to be enough money and they never update anything--they can barely even keep up with basic maintenance. Something is fishy.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"out in the heart of Scarborough, you drive.... unless you can't afford a car, in which case you suffer on the TTC. The options all suck."

Agreed, fully. I grew up in the burbs of south Ottawa and Mississauga... ain't ever going back... you're held hostage to your car. I'm a half-hour walk from downtown, a little longer than that to the end of the Leslie St. Spit... and it works for me. That said, I own a bike and I use it pretty extensively in the summer months... it's a great way to get around, but you still have to keep your wits about you!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - that's density - put a 4 plex and 6 plex on EVERY corner and apartments on top of ALL retail establishments ala Paris ..then we;'re talking.

The LRT plan on the cusp


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> MF say - "Me no see transit demand when look around house ... where this transit demand you speak of?"


I suspect it may just be around this part of Toronto that nobody cares to try transit. I wonder how much of the increase is simply the result of New Canadians moving to urban centres? If that's the case, will they be content to remain clients of the TTC?

We have 25 per cent more drivers in Ontario than we did 10 years ago, but I haven't found any figures to compare the year-to-year increase in drivers in Toronto alone. a 10 per cent increase in ridership on transit needs to be compared to the number of new drivers as well.

Of course, with ridership up, we should expect to see a moderate decline in transit prices.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Yep - that's density - put a 4 plex and 6 plex on EVERY corner and apartments on top of ALL retail establishments ala Paris ..then we;'re talking.



But that's just creating density to feed transit. Paris is a bit of a canard actually, I walked beyond the ring road to see what Paris is like for the poor saps who can't afford to live in the nice part. It looked like the ass end of Don Mills with big box stores and every bit of nastiness the burbs can throw at you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No it mandates affordable housing instead of a predation cage with built in inflation.

You clearly did not get out far enough with the rail links. 

it IS rather extensive










••••

Vision and will power.....good on Arnie

Good on California



> *Imagine a high-speed rail line that could get you from San Francisco to LA in 2 hours and 40 minutes.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The monied class prefers autonomous personal transport, naturally - yet I suspect we're entering into a critical phase where that venerable preference is made less popular due to the severely mounting cost of materialistically kicking the Joneses' @asses by driving the car instead of taking the bus/subway/streetcar. Alas, in neighbourhoods like MF's, where, one presumes, no one worth talking about actually bothers even _trying_ to take the TTC, such communities are ill-equipped to successfully retrofit public transit into the scheme of things - even if they were to suddenly change their minds about how they view public transit and their own stance toward it.

The grim math of fuel consumption as a steeply-rising factor in overall personal living expenses is one thing... it'll be interesting to see if we as a society ever move beyond the shallow gambit of denouncing piggy old SUV drivers and progress to the later stage of a wholesale blacklisting of people who drive single-occupancy, smog-belching vehicles to and from work. In other words, though it's not yet happened, I see the distinct possibility that a moral dimension will more strongly enter into this already vibrant, ongoing debate. In a similar manner, it may yet be that those who insist on jetting down to the tropics for a bit of R & R on a sandy white beach will find themselves increasingly castigated for their political incorrectness and loutish insensitivity to the needs of Mother Earth and the myriad hapless creatures who are swaddled in her bosom... we wretched humans included.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> No it mandates affordable housing instead of a predation cage with built in inflation.
> 
> You clearly did not get out far enough with the rail links.
> 
> it IS rather extensive


I did venture out on the extensive rail lines well beyond the city and got the impression that the wealthier Parisians may not be using them. Car traffic was extremely heavy inside the city, with cars parked wherever the hell they would fit, regardless of legality. 

This was my favourite though--so flagrant it actually alerted the parking wardens to action:


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

The SUV'S that really burn me are the ones that hold 5 people. Like a stupid hummer or an escalade; it only holds 5 people. So does a Honda damn freaking civic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I just don't get it why this bothers people so much. Better they should be packed in a bus like cattle or sardines? I don't even get the problem with SUVs other than the application of some sort of anti-succes, anti-enjoyment Puritan value system.

I suspect it will eventually come down to people who like to be clients of the state transport system (I am beginning to suspect--in all seriousness--that this is some sort of biological predeliction) and those who prefer the freedom of choice in transportation (also a function of DNA).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You _would_ think that, too. It removes any obligation on your part to do anything.

_Heck, it's my genes, silly!_

If you can't figure out what's wrong with an Escalade compared to a Zen, a Smartcar or even a freakin' Corolla, then I respectfully suggest you are part of the problem.

But I think you're just joking around 'cos you're bored.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: I have no problem with an Escalade at all. If someone defines their own happpiness as driving around in a big ass truck what difference does it make to me? If they wanted to ride a horse or commandeer the Partridge Family Bus, I couldn't care less. As long as they insure the vehicle, drive safely and don't steal the gasoline. They pay their share of taxes--leave them alone for Pete's sake.

LIke to drive a sweet little half-litre hybrid sardine tin? Be my guest. Freedom of choice was once the hallmark of our great society. I find it more than a little telling that anger and fist-shaking over perceived enviro-crimes skews to the rich end every time.

Class envy anyone?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Back when I was a kid growing up in Hamilton (when did they start calling it "The Hammer"?)


People started calling it The Hammer perhaps ten years ago, but it has caught on in the past two or three years. It is better than all of the other names they called this dumpsite...



> I always wondered why they called it the HSR — Hamilton Street Railway, because the street railway had been ripped up 2 decades earlier. I don't know if that's the name for transit in Hamilton anymore, it was I think when I last visited in the '90s.


It still is. A number of years ago, City Council wanted to "modernize" it and call it something creative, like Hamilton Transit. But the taxpayers ranted about the tax hikes that would come about because they would have to paint all of the buses; and then The Hammer got carried away with Amalgamation.



> But if Hamilton is looking at LRT it should go for it. Streetcars stuck in traffic as in Toronto are not a realistic option.


They looked at it before, but they wanted to have a big ugly elevated rail system, like in Chicago. Because much of the city is built on landfill and on top of hidden creek beds, Subways are not an option. The Mountain is also a big problem because it would be very hard to get an LRT up in a reasonable distance. (Hamilton used to have two inclined railways, but they closed in the 30's because of car and bus usage).

People would be fine with the loss of one lane on Main and King Street; but the recent proposal is to close three lanes, leaving two for cars, on not only the busiest roads in the city, but the only two to cross the city from Westdale to Stoney Creek. Something like the TTC (what we used to have), would actually be a better solution because really, unless there is a crazy accident, traffic has no problem moving through the City at decent speeds, even at peak rush hour - which is different from Hogtown, where there are epic traffic jams.

I just hope they don't decide to just add more diesel burning bendy-buses that can't really navigate downtown...

Our problem is less of the HSR, because our system is fairly good, at least during rush hours - but of making the important connections to where people actually work. Most people I know that live in The Hammer do not work here. There are no practical jobs left, the steel companies have pretty much folded, P&G is flattened, International Harvester is a long ago memory... So most people work in Toronto, Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington - with a fair number that make the trek to Cambridge, K-W, Guelph, and at least in my neighbourhood, Milton. We have very poor transit connections with these places. With the jobs I have had, it has been almost twenty years since I had transit as an option; though I suppose at my last job, I could have taken the GO train if it ran a regular schedule from Aldershot into Hamilton.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Adrian. said:


> The SUV'S that really burn me are the ones that hold 5 people. Like a stupid hummer or an escalade; it only holds 5 people. So does a Honda damn freaking civic.


Adrian, I'd like to address this.

We've two vehicles, a Subaru Outback that carries all of us with a little cargo and a Suburban that'll carry a couple of us with a ton of cargo or all of us with lots of cargo. There are times when my spice will have the Outback with the chillens and I need to make a trip somewhere, sometimes personal, other times business. 

Those times I'm in that big old gas guzzler by myself. Then there's times when we have half the studio loaded up with some or all of us in it and headed to a location shoot.

It makes absolutely no financial sense to purchase a third vehicle, register & insure it & have it sit in the driveway except for the couple thousand kilometers/year that I'd put on it when I couldn't time a trip in the Subaru and had no need for the cargo capacity of the 'Burb.

Last year about 70% of the miles we put on the 'Burb were business related. As such, there was usually photo & camera gear in the back that wouldn't fit in 3 Civics. Some of it wouldn't fit in a mini van, even sans seats.

The vehicles we own are the best compromise considering personal, business & financial factors.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Vision and will power.....good on Arnie
> 
> Good on California


The nation-state of California has exceeded all of us in their dedication to the ecology. :clap: 

The exception being Brazil, perhaps, which is becoming energy independent using its sugar cane crop for ethanol. :clap: 

I drive a Yaris, and very happy with my tater tot on wheels. The high price of gas is good in the long-run, and I hope it stays high so both the US and Canada move toward energy independence. It's not going to happen if the barrel price takes a tumble.

However, I'm somewhat remorseful that some road trips I had dreamed about taking are very expensive now, and actually quite wasteful. I miss the good old days when we didn't have to think so much about the earth and repercussions of our consumption.

As for the runaway inflation we're seeing, I think some companies are testing the waters, and jacking up prices to see how high they can get away with. Air Canada could probably cover their fuel overcharges by raising ticket prices $10-$15, but they're leaping at the opportunity to gouge.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"LIke to drive a sweet little half-litre hybrid sardine tin? Be my guest. Freedom of choice was once the hallmark of our great society. I find it more than a little telling that anger and fist-shaking over perceived enviro-crimes skews to the rich end every time.

Class envy anyone?"

Freedom of choice is still a hallmark... would you believe we live in a fascist state? _Puh-lease._ As for fist-shaking, methinks it's you who are forever railing against those who don't subscribe to your cozy notions of a proper world. I find it a little more than telling that perceived injustices committed against the rich skews to the environmentalist end every time.

Moral imbalances, anyone?

See, anyone can play the game.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: If you see it as a game, feel free to preach. I suppose if you assume that the rich are immoral, that particular view makes sense. Go for it!

Of course, we're still free to choose--it's just that I see more and more commentary indicating that we should just outlaw various vehicles. I prefer a society where people can drive a sardine tin or a more substantial vehicle--and that either won't face intimidation for the choices they make.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Max: If you see it as a game, feel free to preach. I suppose if you assume that the rich are immoral, that particular view makes sense. Go for it!

Of course, we're still free to choose--it's just that I see more and more commentary indicating that we should just outlaw various vehicles. I prefer a society where people can drive a sardine tin or a more substantial vehicle--and that either won't face intimidation for the choices they make._

Ah, but you preach your own sermons, comrade - all to do with the virtue of your freedom to complain about the choices of others... and that's fine, as far as it goes. I needn't even tell you to go for it, as I am fully confident you will continue to toe the line in that regard. You are, if nothing else, a consistent fellow, after all.

As for myself, I am all for personal choice, but it's also nice to see society change and see its values change as the era, and its particular set of conditions and challenges, dictate. I am surprised you would permit yourself to be so intimidated by such factors - do I sense a bit of resistance on your part?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> _I am surprised you would permit yourself to be so intimidated by such factors - do I sense a bit of resistance on your part?_


_

I'm right there on improving sewage systems, cleaning the air of chemicals, developing better technology for automobile engines and developing alternate fuels 

I am not very interested in the picayune musings and blitherings of the frightened, but I want them to be able to hug themselves in a nice green blanket if it makes their wretched lives more bearable. I only become a little concerned when they begin to attract the attention of government goons who will do their bidding in exchange for votes, though I'm likely to be able to weather even that._


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I am relieved to hear that. Your life is, after all, your own; you do with it as you choose. You can even strengthen your resolve to withstand barrages of fools and their chosen government goons!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Resolve is the first defense of knaves and the final defense of fools. Only a solid plan backed by cash and material resources will suffice.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ah, but first you need to resolve your willpower... but we both know you 'get' that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> People started calling it The Hammer perhaps ten years ago, but it has caught on in the past two or three years. It is better than all of the other names they called this dumpsite...


Oh, I think you're being too hard on the old place. I left the city as a young adult because it just wasn't very exciting for a young artistically inclined guy compared to Toronto, but I have many fond memories of the town. When I last lived there it was going through an intense phase of urban renewal, Jackson Square was only a few years old and the Art Gallery was brand new. They hadn't built Copps Coliseum yet. Hess Village was something that was fairly new too. If anything it was more of a dumpsite prior to the 70s, when all that heavy industry just poured effluent straight into Burlington Bay.



EvanPitts said:


> They looked at it before, but they wanted to have a big ugly elevated rail system, like in Chicago. Because much of the city is built on landfill and on top of hidden creek beds, Subways are not an option. The Mountain is also a big problem because it would be very hard to get an LRT up in a reasonable distance. (Hamilton used to have two inclined railways, but they closed in the 30's because of car and bus usage).
> 
> People would be fine with the loss of one lane on Main and King Street; but the recent proposal is to close three lanes, leaving two for cars, on not only the busiest roads in the city, but the only two to cross the city from Westdale to Stoney Creek. Something like the TTC (what we used to have), would actually be a better solution because really, unless there is a crazy accident, traffic has no problem moving through the City at decent speeds, even at peak rush hour - which is different from Hogtown, where there are epic traffic jams.


I think a simpler solution for LRT is the best and the most economical. Leave it on the road as much as possible, with elevations only when it has to cross some of the larger intersections. If there are some railway right-of-ways that serve the route then use them. But it needs to be separated from traffic. Streetcars should not be stuck behind a line of cars at a red light.

As far as the trip up the Mountain, there must be a technical way to get the cars up and down that could work. Maybe some new inclined railway routes need building, where the streetcars move onto platforms and are raised up and down. Are the current cuts that weave up and down at too steep a grade for streetcars?



EvanPitts said:


> Our problem is less of the HSR, because our system is fairly good, at least during rush hours - but of making the important connections to where people actually work. Most people I know that live in The Hammer do not work here. There are no practical jobs left, the steel companies have pretty much folded, P&G is flattened, International Harvester is a long ago memory... So most people work in Toronto, Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington - with a fair number that make the trek to Cambridge, K-W, Guelph, and at least in my neighbourhood, Milton. We have very poor transit connections with these places. With the jobs I have had, it has been almost twenty years since I had transit as an option; though I suppose at my last job, I could have taken the GO train if it ran a regular schedule from Aldershot into Hamilton.


Yeah, I've heard that Hamilton has become more of bedroom community than it had ever been before. I think that was starting to happen back in the 70s as the industrial basis was starting to already retrench. I understand that the GO system is expanding, so I would think that building your transit in co-ordination with that would be a priority.

I expect that with gas prices heading ever higher, and with little chance of them ever coming down again, the viability of Hamilton as a suburb only is going to be lost. Planners and citizens should be getting ready for the suburban dream's prompt demise. Most expect suburban sprawl to contract into denser regional centres. The planners in Greater Vancouver realized this in the '90s, with official plans making nods to densifying and building up regional suburban hubs. (Unfortunately a good deal of this planning has been ignored, but it's now being finally re-discovered.) I imagine Hamilton still has a viable centre that can be re-purposed and re-engineered.

Here's a great blog I found a couple of years ago that I check into now and then that talks a lot about planning and environmental issues in Hamilton and is dedicated to re-vitalizing the city. Raise The Hammer


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> The nation-state of California has exceeded all of us in their dedication to the ecology. :clap:
> 
> The exception being Brazil, perhaps, which is becoming energy independent using its sugar cane crop for ethanol. :clap:
> 
> ...


Yes MissG, California has always been a leader - good for them. I wish Canada would join them in their fight with the big automakers and the US government on fuel efficiency. The population of Canada is roughly the same as California's so it would be a huge hammer to use in that fight. The BC government has recently announced they want to join in but need the other provinces and the feds to get on board because BC can't go it alone. I know Ontario has been often opposed because of their reliance on the auto manufacturing sector's goodwill.

I don't think we have to worry much about gas prices going down again. I still think they are going a lot higher in months and years to come. Peak oil is coming sooner or later and even if it's later, climate change concerns are starting to force us to put a price on fossil fuel generated carbon emissions. Our petrol prices are still dirt cheap compared to Europe.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Peak oil is a long way away from occurring--perhaps centuries.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Peak oil is a long way away from occurring--perhaps centuries.


Your opinion only.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Peak oil is a long way away from occurring--perhaps centuries.


That's certainly not consistent with what I've heard from other sources, but even if it were true, why shouldn't we do everything we can to develop other energy sources?

The energy released by burning fossil fuels was converted from solar to chemical energy by photosynthesis millions of years ago. It's existence underground is like an energy savings account. But regardless of the size of your savings account, it's not a good idea to live beyond your means. Unlike investments, oil doesn't earn interest, and unlike money, there's not bank you can go to to borrow energy when you run out.

Our planet receives far more solar energy on a daily basis than we need to run our civilization with lots left over, even using our current inefficient technologies. But we persist in running this civilization on the stored chemical energy, rather than the freely-available solar energy because we can't be bothered to invest in the infrastructure we need to collect the power that the sun provides. 

You say it'll be later, and others say it'll be sooner, but there's no question that oil will run out, and there's no question that burning it is a dirty, inefficient way of generating power. So why not start using other sources of energy while we have the option, instead of waiting until we have no choice and discovering that it's harder than we thought when it's too late.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> That's certainly not consistent with what I've heard from other sources, but even if it were true, why shouldn't we do everything we can to develop other energy sources?
> 
> The energy released by burning fossil fuels was converted from solar to chemical energy by photosynthesis millions of years ago. It's existence underground is like an energy savings account. But regardless of the size of your savings account, it's not a good idea to live beyond your means. Unlike investments, oil doesn't earn interest, and unlike money, there's not bank you can go to to borrow energy when you run out.
> 
> ...


So-called conservatives don't really understand this type of thinking. Really most conservatives aren't really conservative, they're just hidebound traditionalists. They want to keep doing everything the way it has always been done (at least as long as they've been around), because it's uncomfortable to think about doing things any other way. 

So when someone sensibly tells them we are quickly overdrawing our energy and natural resources bank account and heading for a crash which our children are going to have to live with they don't want to hear it. They put their fingers in their ears and sing "La-la-la, free markets will save us, la-la-la, you can't force me to use less stuff in our "free society", la-la-la, climate change and peak oil is bunk".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Coming soon to a driveway near you.

Shades of Mad Max












> *The Cafe Racer Truck Runs on 100% Recycled Coffee Grounds*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Peak oil is a long way away from occurring--perhaps centuries.


I was reading about this in the NY Times just yesterday, and the professional analysts don't even know, so how come you do, MF? The objects of their inquiry (OPEC, for one) are very opaque, and the variables are many. While there is oil in the ground in some places, it's very expensive to drill, and they don't want to make the commitment. Some oil is found at sites along with shale, and it's very expensive to free oil from rock. 

Some places are difficult to access (Siberia), making it tough getting the supply out. Some places (Nigeria) have unstable governments, making it tough to do business at all. 

Many specialists believe that Saudi Arabia hasn't increased its supplies to the west because they're already pumping at capacity. But they won't admit this.

Or perhaps I'm way off, and Generalissimo Macfury is a strongman in the dino juice industry that knows the other dictators well.

Oil fields that are being tapped take several years to come to fruition, btw.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> When I last lived there it was going through an intense phase of urban renewal, Jackson Square was only a few years old and the Art Gallery was brand new. They hadn't built Copps Coliseum yet. Hess Village was something that was fairly new too. If anything it was more of a dumpsite prior to the 70s, when all that heavy industry just poured effluent straight into Burlington Bay.


Jackson Scare is still there, but it is mostly empty and normally filled with drug abusers and other crazy people. The whole block across the street is collapsing, one building went down two weeks ago, and another is about to go. They never did complete the urban renewal. We did get a new Federal Building, but that costs the taxpayer $16 million per year in "rent" (that is, corruption to Mr. Martin's cohorts), and the old Federal Building is a derelict ruin.

The Art Gallery fell apart, and had to be rebuilt at great cost. Copps was built, but does not make the grade for the NHL, which will never locate in town. Ivor Wynne Stadium is falling apart, and is so bad that Faith Hill and Tim McGraw refused to play a concert there. Hess Village... The Groan & Grovel is gutted, the place across the street collapsed, the old dentists office was renovated, but the house across from that is all propped up while the figure out how to keep the front of it from falling onto Main Street. The building on St. Joseph's Drive is still sliding into the park behind it (kids have to trek a half mile to the other nearest park.

At least the old Corktown was renovated, and looks more appealing. But then the Forgotten Rebels haven't played there, I guess it is too upscale...



> If there are some railway right-of-ways that serve the route then use them. But it needs to be separated from traffic. Streetcars should not be stuck behind a line of cars at a red light.


There are a number of right-of-ways intact in the city, but it is Hamilton, so they will never use them. Just like the Go Train, when they had to spend countless millions of dollars on the rails that are already in place (and have been since 1890). If they can think of a way to louse things up, they will.



> Are the current cuts that weave up and down at too steep a grade for streetcars?


They are indeed too steep. Some of the cuts are too steep or regular buses, and even the Jolley Cut, which most of the buses use, is a real challenge. The only practical way to get a train up the mountain is the old Port Dover Railway right of way, but it starts the climb above midtown, and doesn't get to the top until the other side of Upper Kenilworth, which is a few miles out of the way. They could cut a tunnel up through the mountain... Really, it doesn't look like much until you have to go up and down it all the time. It really is an impediment to efficient transport. But I think they need to concentrate on east-west links first, one on the lower city and one on the mountain, just to get people around. Linking those is a much larger task that can not be practically financed with the limited ridership that the HSR has now. But if they build the east-west links, and get people on the buses and LRT, or streetcars, then that financing may fall into place.



> Yeah, I've heard that Hamilton has become more of bedroom community than it had ever been before. I think that was starting to happen back in the 70s as the industrial basis was starting to already retrench.


When I was young, pretty much every family I knew had at least one person working at one of the big plants. Stelco had one plant with 12,000; Dofasco with 8,000; not to mention the hundreds or thousands that worked at IH, P&G, National Steel Car, Firestone, Consumers Glass, American Can, and Westinghouse. Practically all of those jobs are gone, and many of those factories leveled. Nothing has come around to replace those jobs, so people have to commute to work.

Even for myself, I have had to commute to and from work for pretty much the last twenty years, and jobs in Burlington are even drying up because more companies are moving to places like Vaughn. I knew few people that had long commutes in the 70's; now pretty much everyone I know works out of town, and many of them have had to move because of the lack of work here. Even the minimum wage jobs have moved away...



> I understand that the GO system is expanding, so I would think that building your transit in co-ordination with that would be a priority.


Pretty much everyone other than the politicians would think that. They have some new hair brained scheme to build a new train station in the north end, where most people could not get to without driving, rather than using the existing train station (which is also the bus depot). It is the Taj Mahal syndrome...



> I expect that with gas prices heading ever higher, and with little chance of them ever coming down again, the viability of Hamilton as a suburb only is going to be lost.


And of course, being Hamilton, the official "plan" is to expand the city out to Binbrook and beyond (a good ten miles into the country) - even though there are no plans at bringing any jobs into the city. Much of the city is not serviced with transit at all - and the routes have barely changed from when I used to take the bus thirty years ago. Population has doubled, bus service has been cut in at least half, or more.



> I imagine Hamilton still has a viable centre that can be re-purposed and re-engineered.


There are a lot of plans, but the system is entirely broken down. This is the only city in Ontario where you build the house first, then apply for the permit. They had a house that was so bad that Mike Holmes said it was a lost cause. As for infilling, they are going to wedge a welfare slum between my friend's backyard and the railway tracks because there is a thirty foot strip of rough, polluted land that the developer paid a dime for at a tax sale.

There have been some gains - the bay is cleaner; but there are some disasters - ie. a Hollywood studio is coming to town to film battle scenes for a movie about Iraq. 
Last summer they built a rather large set for the filming of The Incredible Hulk, but they chose to build these large facades because Hamilton didn't make the grade - the existing buildings were in too poor condition to be used for the ghetto scenes. That's why they film here - much of the city is more shabby than places like Hell's Kitchen...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Miss Gulch: If the oil fields take several years to come to fruition then it isn't peak oil--just a temporary supply lag. If you said "Peak easy oil" I might agree with you.

The world survey of oil is divided into three categories:

* Proven Reserves
* Identified Reserves
* Recoverable Reserves

Those likely to want to create a flap choose only the first. Most of the dire predictions are based on oil company figures skewed to raise prices. US Geological Survey results show world reserves to be enough to last well over a century at current levels of consumption--by then we won't want it any more.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Evan Pitts: The Hammer went south when they renamed CHCH-TV.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Pearson is going to die. You already pay an enormous tax and fee for flying out of there. I was looking for flights to Frankfurt and I found one for 650 bucks (PLUS 340 DOLLARS IN TAXES AND FEES!). Compared to, Buffalo > Frankfurt (via jfk) for about 600 dollars with tax and everything. Air Canada is committing suicide by doing this considering Pearson is their hub.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I doubt Pearson is going to die anytime soon, regardless of your dire prognosis. Oh, people will complain. But they'll still hop onto planes... you betcherbippy. The cost of air travel must double or triple before the lowly masses begin to make alternate travel plans.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian and I are not members of the lowly masses, then. Buffalo, Ho!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Celebrate, good fellow! Tomorrow it may rain ashes, but tonight is yours to enjoy!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Miss Gulch: If the oil fields take several years to come to fruition then it isn't peak oil--just a temporary supply lag. If you said "Peak easy oil" I might agree with you.
> 
> The world survey of oil is divided into three categories:
> 
> ...


That's not true. Again this is just your opinion. Those who are studying the subject of worldwide oil supplies are considering all reserves. And the term Peak Oil means just that — the peak of the the curve of the total world oil supply. The USGS has the most wildly optimistic estimates of when the world will reach peak oil, something like 2038 if memory serves, standing well outside what others studying it have come up with. It also contradicts other opinions from US government agencies that predict an earlier world peak.

There are 2 things to remember about peak oil. Whenever we hit that peak, a point that we will only really be able to tell at some point after we've hit it, supply will no longer be able to keep up with demand and therefore prices will start to become much higher very quickly and oil producing countries will start to be careful about how much they are willing to export (without being invaded by countries like the USA). Rationing will probably be a factor. The other thing is that as much as 1/4 of the remaining half of the world's oil is not economical to recover at any price. This is because it takes more energy to get it than what is harvested, so it makes no sense to use it. Things like the oil sands and shale oil, while usable in a pinch are only barely economic in that they require a huge amount of energy output to gather the net oil we can ship. Those attempting to debunk peak oil always point to the immense estimated oil in the sands. That oil comes out to far less once you subtract the energy needed to extract it, unlike the easier crude that we are now burning and that takes one barrel's worth of energy to get 100 returned. This also doesn't take into account the environmental Chernobyl we would create to use all of that oil.

We've used roughly half of the world's oil in a little over 100 years. There is no way the remaining increasingly difficult to extract second half (minus the uneconomic portion) can last anywhere near that long with the world's demand increasing exponentially. 95% of the world's transportation energy comes from oil currently. Extrapolating current usage increases, China alone would be using 100% of the current world's annual production inside of a decade. If we hit peak in 5 years, 10 years or even 25 years and we don't have some alternative system in place to power our transportation needs when oil demand outstrips supply, we will be up the creek without a paddle. This is besides the fact that we need to abandon fossil fuels even sooner because of the carbon emission problems. 

Conservatives like to gamble on their free market faith magically supplying an unspecified solution and doing zip in the meantime. The more intelligent option would be for us to collectively start ramping up other concrete solutions on how to get by with less oil very soon.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Adrian. said:


> Pearson is going to die. You already pay an enormous tax and fee for flying out of there. I was looking for flights to Frankfurt and I found one for 650 bucks (PLUS 340 DOLLARS IN TAXES AND FEES!). Compared to, Buffalo > Frankfurt (via jfk) for about 600 dollars with tax and everything. Air Canada is committing suicide by doing this considering Pearson is their hub.


Air Canada may be first with these surcharges, but I think the rest of the industry will be following along in due time. They'll have to if they want to stay in business with skyrocketing fuel prices.

When I was a kid in the '60s getting on a jet for a trip wasn't something a lot of people did regularly. It was also pretty expensive. Now everyone I know probably has been on several flights a year (except me). I predict we'll be going back to the time where air travel is a rarity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce:Air travel was such a big deal in the '60s that an entourage would usually accompany a relative heading out on a flight. I took ONE return flight in my first 20 years on earth. I've taken perhaps a dozen since.

Regarding "pealk oil" I don't think it's really a meaningful term. Increasing oil prices will just see a lower demand, exploitation of more difficult oil sources and a switch to currently more expensive fuels. I don't see everyone Jonesing after oil at $200 per barrel. Demand, production and price will settle at some more predictable level.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I took my first flight in the spring of 1970. Between then and my last flight in July of 2000 I flew millions of miles in commercial jets, private jets, private props, ski planes, float planes, helicopters and bush planes on wheels of every description.

It got so I spent half my working life in airports or the air. I swore when I retired, I would never get on board another plane and eight years later I have kept that promise.

I don't miss it one damn bit and the environment is the better for it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I predict we'll be going back to the time where air travel is a rarity.


I don't but I think we will see a different flying pattern with composite planes and many smaller 6-20 passenger flying direct.










These VLJ are getting lighter and more fuel efficient - the one above gets 10 mpg ( that's for the entire aircraft not per passenger ) and weighs not much more than an SUV.

There are some remarkably efficient designs in the works










By Boeing and others.
The biggest advantage is rather straightforward conversion to bio-fuel use.

Down the road Boeing has a fuel cell craft flying now tho any mass use is well out.










The hub system in North America and Europe is a killer for any efficiency and the small light jets will change that but it's maybe a decade before it gets to the average flyer.
Diesel is emerging which offers 25% + better fuel mileage and of course is very straight forward for biofuel.



> Lycoming unveiled a prototype diesel engine at the Oshkosh AirVenture show in 2006 and senior vice-president Ian Walsh says the company will have an engine on the market "well before 2020". Teledyne Continental Motors has launched "an aggressive programme to develop a family of Jet A engines for aviation applications, free of the inherent disadvantages associated with automotive-based engines". First run of a 350hp engine is expected in 2009.


 ( there are already some flying on light planes ).

The nature of the flying demand/community is such that it has the funding and tech to move forward rather quickly.
$200 oil is just going to move it forward that much quicker. :clap:


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

*Bush begs for more juice*

Please, PLEASE, Abdullah, turn up the spigot cuz prices are too high!

Abdullah says no because he's already pumping out enough. Shrub doesn't seem to have much clout with his old oil buddies like he did in the old days. They don't pump out more because 1) either they can't, because oil has peaked, or 2) they don't want to, and will continue to enjoy the high prices. They don't care that the US is in recession, which results in driving prices down, because there are plenty of customers for their oil. 

Either way, we are sunk. Unless we develop renewable energy sources.

My guess is that 1) is the more likely scenario. In the past, the oil producers were worried that we would develop alternate energy, so they kept the prices low to keep us on a leash. The specter of alternates is growing, but they still don't raise output. Probably because they can't.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Evan Pitts: The Hammer went south when they renamed CHCH-TV.


Or when Tuckett Tobacco moved to Guelph...

CHCH-TV was pretty cool when Ken Soble owned it. They used to have Maple Leaf Wrestling from the Forum, Roller Derby, and they always showed The Ten Commandments at Easter. They had some pretty good personalities like Norm Marshall (who used to do the university football games forever), Dick Beddoes, and who could forget Tom Cherington, especially the time he chewed up Trudeau and spit him out. That dude makes Rush Limbaugh look like a communist namby-pamby wuss. The people they have now aren't bad - but they certainly are not hard core like in the old days.

They tried that ONTv thing, and it really did suck; it was only a bit better when Global took it over and made it CHTV. Now it is some E! thing, but without the cool True Hollywood Stories. That is perhaps the best show on TV - about how actors and actresses all get hooked on booze and dope. I especially liked the one where they had that Tattoo dude from Fantasy Island. He was hanging out at his buddies apartment in Paris, and they drank all of the dudes wine. Then they drank all the hard stuff, and shot some heroin. When they ran out, they drank the dudes turpentine - before they got into the paint thinners. Now that's entertainment!

I bet Cherington would chew up the Air Canada executives for their profiteering (as well as their crummy service).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Evan: Let's not forget _The Hilarious House of Frankenstein_ and _Tiny Talent Time_!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Please, PLEASE, Abdullah, turn up the spigot cuz prices are too high!


The Middle East provides a pathetic 20% of American oil imports. The U.S. could easily make this up in domestic oil production and free itself from unstable sources in just a few years.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Evan: Let's not forget _The Hilarious House of Frankenstein_ and _Tiny Talent Time_!


Billy Van was entirely nuts - and that show is cult classic cool. Too bad that they can't show the Wolfman segments in the re-released broadcasts. I remember Vincent Price climbing out of a Cab at the Brewer's Retail in full makeup - he was one scary hombre! Billy Van was also in The Party Game, and later on, he was in a computer show on TVO with Luba Goy. Sometimes he would come out of his house and play football with us at the Baptist church, until he moved out of the 'hood. Steve Smith also lived down the street, but we never saw him outside too often. I knew many of the people that worked at CHCH-TV, mostly technicians and cameramen. I almost landed a job there, but they ran into financial problems when that WIC deal took them over, and pretty much everyone I knew was superannuated. 

Tiny Talent Time was a favourite of Clifford Olson, and he probably has a collection on DVD...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Please, PLEASE, Abdullah, turn up the spigot cuz prices are too high!
> 
> Abdullah says no because he's already pumping out enough. Shrub doesn't seem to have much clout with his old oil buddies like he did in the old days. They don't pump out more because 1) either they can't, because oil has peaked, or 2) they don't want to, and will continue to enjoy the high prices. They don't care that the US is in recession, which results in driving prices down, because there are plenty of customers for their oil.
> 
> ...


Saudi Arabia and some of the other Persian Gulf countries won't give accurate figures on their estimated reserves. There is evidence that figures they did provide in the '80s were massively inflated. Many believe that all the mega oil fields in the region are past peak production. The Bush admin and most of the Republican leadership including McCain are still saying for public consumption that production can be substantially increased. They must be fully aware (although they probably don't tell Dubya) that this is impossible. 

The big drum they're beating currently is to open up the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge region to oil extraction, as if that will solve all the problems. Unfortunately the media doesn't seem to be reporting that even if that is done, regardless of environmental impact to the refuge, the region's potentially 10 Billions barrels of oil will only add about 1% to estimated worldwide reserves. 

There are no magic bullets. The rate of discovery of new oil fell well below the world consumption many years ago. Even if the occasional new mega-field is brought online this does not make up for worldwide declines in all the older mega-fields everywhere passing their production peaks.

I found an interesting what-if article today on MSN Money: What if gas cost $10 a gallon? - MSN Money ($10 a gallon probably means about $3 a litre in Canada, more or less based on the current rates)

Based on the fact that crude oil and gasoline prices have doubled in the last few years, what happens if they double again in the next few? Is this impossible - I don't think it is at all. Even if it doesn't increase at the same rate but only goes up half the rate it has recently increased at we could be in for some interesting effects, not all bad, in my opinion, but some definitely catastrophic to some people.

The article mentions that if you're in a business where the cost of fuel is a large part of what you have to charge for; trucking, courier, taxis, airlines, even pizza delivery, you may arrive at the point where what you have to charge means that your service will become too expensive for all but the very wealthy. Would you still be ordering a pizza if the driver has to get a delivery charge that is almost what the pizza cost. Some will, but many won't. If you're in one of these businesses, it might be wise to get out while you still can.

The article touches on a few other societal effects, such as an upsurge in transit use and possible societal benefits. These changes will be good in the long run, the only downer being that if gasoline costs double what it does now in 2011 or 2012 we won't have had the time to make the required infrastructure changes for that transition not be economically painful to many.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Even if you're not in any of the businesses you list, it's potentially serious given our reliance on foodstuffs shipped in from all points of the globe. We're already seeing the prices go up in certain categories and we can probably expect the trend to continue until such time as we develop cheaper, equally efficient alternate energy sources for the global transportation of goods. Again, this is not necessarily all bad news; if some of these developments encourage a renewal of self-reliance on both an individual and national level, that's something to be encouraged. Eating food grown/raised locally might come back in a big way. Perhaps we will see more of this kind of thinking extending into other realms of society's norms.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

The economy cannot afford to not be able to transport people to the other side of the world by an attainable and expedient fashion. Capitalism demands a smaller and smaller world, and as it goes: Where there is demand, there will be supply.

Oh, Smith, I hope you are right about human ingenuity.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_The economy cannot afford to not be able to transport people to the other side of the world by an attainable and expedient fashion. Capitalism demands a smaller and smaller world, and as it goes: Where there is demand, there will be supply._

What economy? The global one? Isn't that really just a bunch of interlinked economies - many intricate ties, yes, but also many boundaries, obstacles, trade barriers, tariffs, etc... and many different political systems to mess things up even more.

All this talk of globalism is but an extremely recent phenomenon. Human civilizations survived quite handily for millennia without global trading policies of any kind. Relatively few individuals traveled beyond a few miles' distance from their own village, even over the course of their entire lifetimes; still less were the number of seafarers who even managed to set foot on a continent other than the one they were born on. It's not inconceivable that one day our descendants might find themselves doing the same thing.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Saudi
> 
> I found an interesting what-if article today on MSN Money: What if gas cost $10 a gallon? - MSN Money ($10 a gallon probably means about $3 a litre in Canada, more or less based on the current rates)


Individuals, companies and even governments can (at times of crises) be infinitely resourceful.

What is not economically feasible today may be very feasible when gas is $3 per liter or more.

Let's say that the awesome greenhouse tomatoes you're growing today cost $2/pound at the supermarket vs. the crappy green imports at $1.00/pound. With high fuel prices, trucking those same crappy California or Mexican "greens" now boosts the price to $5.00/pound vs. your greenhouse tomatoes which cost $3.00/pound (adjusting for your increase in fuel costs as well). The government is telling you to expand and grow more, they may even give you incentives in the form of tax credits and interest free loans. You expand, hire more employees, support other local and national companies to run your operation.

National Grocers, Safeway, A&P are lining up to buy from you because no one is willing to pay $5.00/pound for gassed green crap.

Just a thought.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The article touches on a few other societal effects, such as an upsurge in transit use and possible societal benefits. .


It will just mean more local businesses, though why anyone considers transit use a "benefit" is beyond me. It may be something that sardine people enjoy, but you won't catch me in a subway car or bus regularly, even at $10 per gallon.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> It will just mean more local businesses, though why anyone considers transit use a "benefit" is beyond me. It may be something that sardine people enjoy, but you won't catch me in a subway car or bus regularly, even at $10 per gallon.


I would rather walk or ride my bike but the subway cannot be beat. I have a nice car and I would rather take the subway and be a sardine on a subcar for 15 minutes than be stuck in traffic on the gardener for 2 hours.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian, you're right--the people who are wringing their hands over the end of international travel are simply wrong. They're the people who were thinking "coal" in the age of oil. I suspect there's a streak of Luddite in some of them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I wonder if you are referring to me. Ah, well. I was conjecturing, not prophesizing. I don't have a crystal ball. I just find it interesting to speculate.

I love the term "sardine people," though. Smacks of a 50s pulp novel... you know, the same sort of breathless, jittery feeling.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Give me the comfort of my car every time. I have only very rarely found myself in a situation where I couldn't find an auto route that took me to my destination faster than transit--even the subway. Give me the car every time. I'm not suggesting that others not take the transit. I want you to clear the roads to make way for my automobile.

Max: You're not the luddite...though you may be a sardine person (possibly a tinned mackerel). I was referring to others off this board who seem to take delight in the notion that only those attending environmental summits should have the privilege of traveling internationally.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

kps said:


> Individuals, companies and even governments can (at times of crises) be infinitely resourceful.
> 
> What is not economically feasible today may be very feasible when gas is $3 per liter or more.
> 
> ...


Yup, higher gas and oil prices I think will suddenly make local farming more competitive with cheap labour but fossil fuel imported farming and that's a good thing. Fortunately we haven't covered all of Canada's best farmland with sub-divisions yet, only half of it or so.

I think the real problem that we might face is if the fuel prices keep rising at the rate we've seen in the last few years. Ours society simply can't adjust that fast and in some cases we don't have the technology ready to adjust. So there is going to be economic pain for most and serious pain for some. And since we didn't have the foresight to put a decent transit infrastructure in place, the transit option for many will truly be a sardine situation. But gradually we'll adapt, the car dependent suburban dream will begin to wither away, some will get re-acquainted with their bicycles and the scooter business will grow. Many of us will probably be in better physical shape and may even own some good walking shoes.

There may be a few who are better off like Macfury and could afford $200 a week in gas to get to and from work and those that can't will be cramming themselves onto the GO train and cursing their politicians for not building enough transit back in the early and mid 2000s. Those same sardine people will have conveniently forgotten that they would have crucified any politician back then who had the nerve to suggest massive transit expenditures over freeway improvements. But such is life, eh?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There may be a few who are better off like Macfury and could afford $200 a week in gas to get to and from work and those that can't will be cramming themselves onto the GO train and cursing their politicians for not building enough transit back in the early and mid 2000s. Those same sardine people will have conveniently forgotten that they would have crucified any politician back then who had the nerve to suggest massive transit expenditures over freeway improvements. But such is life, eh?


There would be more people than ever telecommuting, working from home. I doubt there are too many of us that need to actually be physically present every day in the office, if the home is equipped. This movement would grow and expand exponentially.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> There may be a few who are better off like Macfury and could afford $200 a week in gas to get to and from work and those that can't will be cramming themselves onto the GO train and cursing their politicians for not building enough transit back in the early and mid 2000s. Those same sardine people will have conveniently forgotten that they would have crucified any politician back then who had the nerve to suggest massive transit expenditures over freeway improvements. But such is life, eh?


Such is life. The MFs of this world will doubtless be able to afford to effectively insulate themselves from that particularly volatile mixture of opprobrium and envy which the teeming masses will reserve for these grand blimp people (some of us are sardines, some of us are blimps, you see). The blimps always have access to the best booze and drugs and can surround themselves with people who will nod their heads in accord with the Master's infinite wisdom. That too is life, and it is an ancient story... in its great and festering conflicts, it's dang near biblical.

MF: I'm happy to be branded a tinned mackerel - 'tis an honour you bestow on me, sir. Think of it - the rest of my kin, mere sardines! For my part, I'm seeing you increasingly as a bluff house wart - the term sprang to mind yesterday and I have not been able to shake its significance. You'll have to give that a careful reading, I'm sure.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max said:


> _The economy cannot afford to not be able to transport people to the other side of the world by an attainable and expedient fashion. Capitalism demands a smaller and smaller world, and as it goes: Where there is demand, there will be supply._
> 
> What economy? The global one? Isn't that really just a bunch of interlinked economies - many intricate ties, yes, but also many boundaries, obstacles, trade barriers, tariffs, etc... and many different political systems to mess things up even more.
> 
> All this talk of globalism is but an extremely recent phenomenon. Human civilizations survived quite handily for millennia without global trading policies of any kind. Relatively few individuals traveled beyond a few miles' distance from their own village, even over the course of their entire lifetimes; still less were the number of seafarers who even managed to set foot on a continent other than the one they were born on. It's not inconceivable that one day our descendants might find themselves doing the same thing.



Depends what camp you play ball from. Globalism, Globalization or Internationalization? That is the question? 


Recent you say? That is a very very very dangerous assumption.

I am months away from finishing a masters in political economy...don't mind me.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm curious - why is it dangerous? I'd appreciate an answer to that, Adrian. It might further the conversation. Another courtesy you might extend would be to explain your ideas on the crucial differences between globalism, globalization and internationalization... it might be a great contribution.

You know, once upon a time I went to school too. I'd give you my credentials, but then again they are irrelevant. I'd only do that if I felt insecure and thought I desperately needed it against a titan whose intellectual abilities dwarfed my own.

Oh dear, do you think that perhaps this is one of those times?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max said:


> I'm curious - why is it dangerous? I'd appreciate an answer to that, Adrian. It might further the conversation. Another courtesy you might extend would be to explain your ideas on the crucial differences between globalism, globalization and internationalization... it might be a great contribution.
> 
> You know, once upon a time I went to school too. I'd give you my credentials, but then again they are irrelevant. I'd only do that if I felt insecure and thought I desperately needed it against a titan whose intellectual abilities dwarfed my own.
> 
> Oh dear, do you think that perhaps this is one of those times?


I was trying to do the opposite of what you are suggesting Max by stating that I am finishing my masters on the subject. I didn't want to sound pretentious by arguing with you out of my ass. I thought detailing that I am currently in the middle of studying exactly this might help to rectify my focus and obscurity.

No superiority at all intended. I do not know you, nor, do I know your curriculum. You could very well be one of my professors. If you would like to have a casual discussion I would be interested to do so in a positive tone.


sorry for the mix up


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

OK! Trust me, Adrian - I am not a prof. I don't think I could ever be one, either. The halls of academia once attracted me, but that was long ago. Those of my friends who went that route are very glad they did so, but there's a strange gap between us, one which, for my part, I find I cannot bridge very well. We do better to discuss other things when we get together.

In any case, on with the thread... why was my assumption dangerous? I have to go run some errands, this being the weekend, but I'll pop back in a few hours from now and check for new developments... have a good one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There may be a few who are better off like Macfury and could afford $200 a week in gas to get to and from work and those that can't will be cramming themselves onto the GO train and cursing their politicians for not building enough transit back in the early and mid 2000s.


I'll just be cursing them for not allowing private companies to compete along with them. I think If I had to choose between the car and the GO Train, I would just rather not go. Maybe take a few days off to walk there.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Let's see how this pans out:

100mi on 4oz of water


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

kps said:


> Let's see how this pans out:
> 
> 100mi on 4oz of water


While I certainly don't have the technical expertise to judge this, this video has been floating around the internets for at least a year and other have judged it. I'm calling snake oil on this one based on nothing more than a gut feeling that if this was for real there would be a lot of money pushing it forward rather some guy working in his garage with a tricked out 13-year-old Ford Escort.

I think this comes under the heading of "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'll just be cursing them for not allowing private companies to compete along with them. I think If I had to choose between the car and the GO Train, I would just rather not go. Maybe take a few days off to walk there.


I have a vision of QEW filled with 8 lanes of people walking around the abandoned hulks of rusting gas guzzlers. It would make a nice music video. Might put a bit of a pinch on the economy, tho.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'd buy that video in a heartbeat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I have a vision of QEW filled with 8 lanes of people walking around the abandoned hulks of rusting gas guzzlers. It would make a nice music video. Might put a bit of a pinch on the economy, tho.


Ever see the movie _Americathon_. Lots of rusted hulks doubling as people's homes. Not quite a classic, but undervalued. I particularly liked the scene where Meatloaf attacks an automobile with a spear as part of a televised act to raise money to pay the mortgage on the United states. Chief Dan George is brilliant as the guy who is foreclosing ("I've got to eat too. Does that make me a bad guy?)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Ever see the movie _Americathon_.


No, somehow I completely missed ever knowing anything about this. What a cast. Meatloaf, John Ritter as the US President, Harvey Korman, Chief Dan George, Fred Willard, Elvis Costello, George Carlin as the narrator and others.

Also known as Americathon 1998 the movie made several predictions in 1979 that came true:



> • The People's Republic of China embracing capitalism and becoming a global economic superpower.
> • Cliques of Native Americans becoming wealthy (although in reality much of their wealth would come from the gaming industry, mostly from tribal casinos).
> • Nike becoming a huge multinational conglomerate (In 1979, their "Tailwind" running shoe was just starting to gain popularity).
> • Vietnam becoming a major tourist attraction among Asia's wealthy and powerful.
> ...


I'll have to find a copy of it. Thanks.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

The documentary "The End of Suburbia" is excellent. The maker of it actually lives down the street from my parents. Local Ontario documentary maker.

He argues that dwindling fossil fuel resources will have suburbs abandoned for more central inner city livings. Indeed a reversal of the previous phenomenon of the wealthy leaving the city for the suburbs. The suburbs will be the new "ghettos". Very interesting.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Hey Max,

Well, I will do my best to answer this as casually, clearly and refraining from its inherent tautological nature as possible. 

Your first point concerning the level of interconnection and interdependency of “national” economies, if the current environment will permit such language, touches on the very problem of discussions of globalization. To what extent do states have control over their economies, over their territory and to what extent can they control the penetration of foreign capital, agency and movement in their economies and territory? Broadly speaking, is globalization a process that deteriorates sovereignty, enhance it or is it transforming it?

If we consider the massive amounts of funds that can be transferred within seconds from country to country without the states’ control it becomes clear that the role of the state has been diminished in this sense. Currencies, which directly impact so many facets of a state are regulated by international markets. As an example, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 was caused when the government of Thailand had to, due to financial over exhaustion, float their currency against USD in the international market. Drastic devaluation of currency, dropping market confidence and feeble financial institutions caused a massive depression in Asia and throughout the world effects were felt. More, the massive amounts of power that many of the world’s corporations produce often dwarf that of states themselves. Consider, corporations such as Wal Mart, McDonalds, Cemex and our own Canadian AlCan have revenues of more than some 49 countries in the world. Circuits of accumulation and production have extended into states insofar that it is almost impossible to speak of “national” economies any longer.

As for the second question of its danger: to explain it through forum postings will not do the argument justice. It is too large and too complex to explain here. I can email you an article written by a foremost authority on the matter? I can summarize his argument but you must first be informed of so much more to understand what I would even conclude.

It is a very interesting article.


----------

