SUGGESTIONS REGARDING PASSENGER RAIL IN ALBERTA Before I start, a brief look at the past 1950 1970 Back in 1950, passenger trains were the dominant form of transportation for a variety of reasons. a. Very few people had a car so that anybody travelling long distances had to resort to trains b. Even if you had a car roads were very primitive. For example highway 5 between Magrath and Waterton was a gravel road. The highways that were paved had narrow shoulders or no shoulders. As a result it was very difficult to travel safely on these roads at very high speeds. A car could travel faster than a train but it was still a long slow trip. Buses because of their frequent stops were as slow as, or slower than trains. c. Air travel was in its infancy and there were few routes available and planes could only make short hops between airports. The cost of flying was relatively expensive compared to the ground based alternatives. Between 1950 and 1960, more people owned cars and more highways were paved so that the economics and relative ease of travelling by car resulted in increased use of cars for travel across the province, the result was a slow but steady decrease in the market for passenger rail. Additional factors were the economy of travel by car and the quicker travel time of the car. These highways also allowed bus companies to compete with trains in terms of speed and cost. The completion of the Trans-Canada highway from Calgary to Lake Louise and the completion of a four lane highway all the way from Calgary to Edmonton were significant events resulting in large declines in passenger rail traffic By 1960, there was a marked decrease in passenger rail traffic due to the above factors. As the decade proceeded, airlines had evolved to provide cheaper, faster, more frequent and more extensive service. As a result, the decline of demand for passenger rail service decreased even more. Examples were the decline in demand between Calgary and Edmonton due to the introduction of the airbus by PWA. Another example was the decline of trans-continental demand for rail service due to improved airline service as a result of introduction of jets across the country. The railways hastened the decline due to deteriorating equipment and slower schedules. In 1963, the train between Edmonton and Calgary travelled at a very high speed (90 mph in some sections), typically 70 mph. The 3½ h trip time was due to frequent station stops. Once the traffic from the intercity towns disappeared, the travelling speed of the trains decreased pronouncedly to maintain the same 3½ h trip time. The stations at Calgary and Edmonton became more dilapidated, the closure of the downtown Edmonton station left passengers to their own device to reach downtown Edmonton.
Present time 2014 There has been a massive improvement in highway infrastructure throughout the province, particularly around Edmonton and Calgary and at very high cost. For example the approximately ten-twelve billion dollar ring roads around the two cities. Even highway 4 between Lethbridge and Coutts has four lanes, in spite of the fact there is very little population south of Lethbridge to accommodate. I believe the major rational for this four lane highway was to facilitate truck traffic between Canada and the United States. In spite of these improvements there are periods of severe traffic congestion around Calgary and Edmonton, especially in rush hour and weekends. The legal speed limit has not changed in 50 years on most highways. This places a limit on the quality of inter-city bus service. On occasion, I have travelled to Calgary by bus have been amazed that the buses were able to arrive on schedule despite being caught in downtown Calgary traffic gridlock. The combination of increased traffic, unchanged speed limits and congestion close to and within the major cities can result in longer travel times than was the case 40 years ago. Many motorists solve this limitation by travelling at speeds much faster than the legal speed limit and/or driving aggressively. In periods of severe congestion this is dangerous to say the least. In spite of all the improvements congestion markedly slows down travel through Calgary or Edmonton. At one time, I could travel from Lethbridge to Edmonton at any time of day without any delays. Now, I have to leave early enough to avoid rush hour traffic, because rush hour traffic on the Deerfoot is a slow crawl at that time. Many people in Lethbridge use the Vulcan highway and highway 21 to get around Calgary. Some sections of the Stony Trail have been built and travel on it is pretty quick. However it is easy to see that even though the road was built to bypass Calgary, new residential areas have been developed outside the perimeter of the road and this traffic is entering and exiting Stony Trail. A similar situation exist on the Anthony Henday. It seems likely that the same pattern on these two roads will develop as has occurred on the Deerfoot Trail namely a bypass road becomes part of the city roadwork system. In summary, road traffic is becoming problematic even with all the money spent on it. Air traffic is relatively cheaper, faster (less than 1 hour) and frequent. The airport facilities are first class. The only weakness of air travel are the extra times required to travel from the city to the airport and the time required to pass through security. I have found that you are looking at about an hour of extra time. Calgary is not as bad as Edmonton unless you are in rush hour traffic.
Thoughts regarding future travel in Alberta I believe that very high speed bullet trains belong a long time into the future. Besides the cost, I don t think the hourly frequency suggested is realistic at this time. Before such an initiative is taken, I believe that it would be necessary to create a culture of train travel. I suggest that consideration of an improved conventional rail service would serve as a useful starting point to begin the development of this culture. I recognize that there is considerable scepticism about using the CPR line between Calgary and Edmonton but there is a similar situation worth looking at for evaluation and comparison. This is the Cascades rail service under the direction of the departments of transportation of Oregon and Washington. The service extends from Vancouver B.C to Eugene Oregon. There are five daily trains between Portland and Seattle. Two of these originate in Eugene and terminate in Vancouver. In addition there is a daily west coast Amtrak train. The number of trains between Portland and Seattle is to be increased with the recent acquisition of extra train sets. At present the service is pretty slow but the long term objective is to invest in infrastructure to increase speed to 79 mph. Passenger volume has increased steadily since the introduction of service. Here are the ridership statistics from 1993 to 2012 Ridership statistics Washington State Department of Transportation. Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Ridership 94,061 180,209 286,656 304,566 349,761 425,138 452,334 530,218 560,381 584,346 YoY N/A 91.6% 59.1% 6.2% 14.8% 21.6% 6.4% 17.2% 5.7% 4.3% Diff. % Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ridership 589,743 603,059 636,092 629,996 676,765 774,531 761,610 838,251 847,709 845,099 YoY 0.1% 2.3% 5.5% -1.0% 7.4% 14.4% -1.7% 10.1% 1.1% -0.3% Diff. % Please note the initial ridership compared to the ridership in 2012 The large population of Seattle and the smaller but still substantial population of Portland plus the large number of substantial cities in between such as Tacoma, Centralia, Olympia and Vancouver probably has had a large part in it success. What seems remarkable is that Eugene-Springfield which has a population of approximately 250000 can generate enough demand to support two trains a day. No bullet trains here but a demand. Does a similar latent demand exist here? The introduction of a lower cost train to re-establish a train travel culture may also benefit from the congestion factors mentioned previously. So much so that a reasonably fast train could compete time wise with car travel.
So far Greyhound has been able to maintain its 3 h 15min service but I question its ability to continue to do so due to the increasing congestion in Edmonton and Calgary. The Calgary bus station is a considerable distance from the centre of downtown Calgary. in Edmonton the bus station is fairly close to downtown but will soon have to move, there is no guarantee that the new bus station will remain in downtown Edmonton. These factors suggest a possible transfer of passenger traffic from bus to rail if rail stations are close to city centre in Calgary and Edmonton. I would be happy to use passenger rail between Edmonton and Calgary as well as Banff, but not without reservations. Important considerations are reasonable speed and comfort and proximity of stations to city centres. I would definitely not use a resurrected Via Rail service which was noted for slow speed and shabby equipment and remote stations. I would be happy with service taking 2 2/3 hours or less. This would require average speeds of about 80 mph (130 km/h). In Europe 80 mph service is considered slow. The potential for this level of service could be provided on the present CPR line with some modifications: 1. Introduction of PTC (positive train control) which it is claimed prevents collisions between trains. 2. Upgrading of grade crossing barriers. The gate barriers will stop drivers who are alert and obey the law but are ineffective otherwise. There are cable barriers which can absorb the momentum of vehicles and stop them before they cross the tracks. Some rural crossings would have to be eliminated or altered to avoid at grade crossing. 3. Addition of extra sidings with high speed switches to avoid sufficient capacity for passenger rail service so as to not constrict Canadian Pacific freight service. High speed switches would be needed at any point where switches are present anywhere on the route. 4. Location of functional and appropriate stations at Edmonton, Red Deer and Calgary easily accessed from the centre of these cities. As an aside to this point, I believe government has a role to provide intermodal transportation hubs to make transfers between travel modes simple and efficient. Under the present arrangement transfer from air to rail or bus is a trying experience. Consider coming to Edmonton from Jasper and then setting out to the International airport to travel to Toronto, very difficult and drawn out. 5. Use of equipment which allows for high speeds without passenger discomfort and featuring amenities as wi-fi and other features useful for business travellers. There are no private investors who would be willing finance this so there would be a definite need for various levels of government funding. I notice one criteria is used for funding of roads and another for private transportation. The only way government funding will ever be provided is if the criteria are changed. Motorists do not pay the full costs of roads to the province. The provincial information bulletins showing how
provincial taxes are allocated makes this perfectly clear. Based on this observation an argument could be made users of other travel modes should be expected to pay full freight. The task of the Alberta government is to provide for all modes of transportation to allow efficient transportation regardless of mode. Your debate will be if money can be given to alternatives to highways and how much. Another reason to consider reintroduction of passenger rail service is the uncertain future of air travel. Many years ago, I made a lot of money on PWA stocks. If I had not sold them off, I would have lost all invested money through successive mergers. My experience is not unique, the same thing held true for Air Canada shares. In short airlines have become very risky investments with very low returns if any. I would not invest in any airlines now in the for these reasons. At present air service is still expanding and shows no sign of slowdown in growth. Nevertheless unpredictable events such as economic slowdown or large increases in the cost of fuel could severely impact the operations of the airlines. For example higher ticket costs or reduced income of potential customers could reduce demand resulting in fewer flights. Although it may seem farfetched, it has to be a long term consideration. Even if a decision is made not to pursue intercity passenger service in the near term, there is still a potential need to be met by passenger rail near Calgary and Edmonton. In particular, rail service from Edmonton to the International Airport could reduce highway traffic if developed as an attractive alternative. Around Calgary, rail service to Airdrie and Cochrane certainly has potential for success if done properly. I was surprised by a comment from my brother in law, who lives in Airdrie, that given the choice he would prefer to take a train to work in Calgary than drive his car in the daily traffic jam. My brother in law is usually an autophile. Some final thoughts about VIA Rail Service in Alberta Nominally, the federal government set up Via Rail as a crown corporation to manage the rail passenger needs of the country. It is well known that past and present federal governments along with transport Canada would just like passenger trains to disappear. They appear to be succeeding by slowly strangling the system to death. In addition they appear to show no interest in improving the service outside of the Quebec City- Windsor corridor, much in line with the Macpherson commission of 1959. Even though Via Rail is supposed to serve the entire country, the bulk of capital expenditures have been made for equipment and stations in the Quebec City- Windsor corridor. Fairness should require that the Federal government should provide a proportional equivalent to Alberta for any capital expenditures made by any provincial initiative on passenger rail. The operating subsidy of approximately $168 million goes mainly to support operations in the corridor and remote services. Alberta and British Columbia constitute about 25 % of the population of the country but don t receive 25% of the operating subsidy. The Canadian is a pleasant service but slow, archaic and nonoptimized service in Alberta and BC. Given the federal trend, I would like to see Alberta
transportation along with their BC counterparts consider asking for a fair proportion of subsidies and equipment along with rights to appoint their own company to take over route(s) in Alberta and BC which are of some use to the transportation needs and tourism of these provinces. Personally I think the southern route through Calgary to Vancouver is a more logical choice for greatest revenue and utility than the present route. If Manitoba and Saskatchewan wanted to maintain passenger rail service and having it diverted to the southern route, perhaps the route could include Medicine Hat and Lethbridge so that a larger part of Alberta s population could have access to rail transportation, limited as it might be. The company would be created which would have the goal of providing a good, efficient and useful service. Another possibility is that the provinces have more power in determining goals and financial support for passenger rail. The provinces should have some say in passenger rail transportion instead of the federal government having total control. By comparison, although Amtrak is a federal agency it does receive some funding from congress and some from the states. The contributions from the states allow them considerable input in determining rail service in their jurisdiction. Some of these subsidies might be used to provide Edmonton Calgary passenger rail service. I mention this as the Globe and Mail reported last summer that Transport Canada is considering allowing the privatization of the Jasper Vancouver route so that there would no longer be a western transcontinental service with even less of the passenger rail subsidy benefiting Alberta and BC. Mr Armstrong s Rocky Mountaineer, nice as it is, serves only the needs of a very select affluent part of the tourist population only. I once asked Rocky Mountain rail how much it would cost from Banff to Calgary and they basically told me to take a hike. Thank you for allowing input. Barry Brown B.Sc (physics) M.Sc (physics) private citizen