1261 replies to this topic

[UrbanRail]

Article Two.

I got this from a forum I am a member of (railfan.net). A group of us discusses issues relating to railways on Vancouver Island, especially the E&N.

Peake poised to meet Falcon block head-on
March 12, 2008 | | | |

Jack Peake is about to meet his biggest block to fixing the E&N rail like he was meeting another train on the same track — head on.

B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon was less than kind last week after it was announced Peake’s group, the Island Corridor Foundation, was seeking more than $100 million from the province and the feds to fix the old railway to make it more suitable for commuter and freight transportation.

“(Falcon’s) problem is he’s just not a big supporter of rail infrastructure, particularly,” said Peake.

“However, I know he’s been contacted by a number of folks and I do know at the time he hadn’t sat down and read through our proposal and I understand he’s backed away a little from that hard stand and is saying, ‘Let me have a chance to pursue this and analyze this and I’ll think about it more.’”

Peake is about to help the minister organize his thoughts when the two meet.

“I’m a firm believer that across-the-table discussion with people garners more than doing things long-distance,” said Peake, who also chairs the Cowichan Valley Regional District.

“I expect to sit down with Falcon and some of his staff in the very near future, hopefully by month’s end.”

Last week members of First Nations, business, environmental and community leaders announced the formation of the Our Corridor Coalition, a group that plans to join the Island Corridor Foundation and Southern Railway of Vancouver Island to lobby senior governments to rebuild Vancouver Island’s E&N rail corridor.

The OCC announced it will ask the province to partner with the feds to help secure $103.8 million to bring the 290 kilometre rail corridor up to North American standards.

Falcon sneered at the idea the same day, and said he’d never support such an idea unless he received complete details of the plan.

“Until I see that information, I certainly wouldn’t even commit at this point to talking to the federal government about it, because I wouldn’t want to be laughed out of the room,” he said last week.

Peake said it’s been an ongoing effort to try and get Falcon’s attention, to try and get a positive response from the minister.

“He seemed to ignore or not be aware of the fact I’d been to Ottawa and received a much more positive response from politicians down there — I already did that homework for him,” said Peake, referring to his visit to the nation’s capital last month when he met with ministers and other MPs to get their support for a refurbished rail corridor.

While Peake works on government bigwigs — so far all the responses have been positive, he said — he maintains the real support needed to get the project done will come from the voters.

“People are coming onside through our website, www.ourcorridor.ca, and lending their support by writing letters to the premier and to minister Falcon,” he said.

“Anything that happens in this country is usually in response to the population saying this is something you need to do,” he said.

“That’s what will make this successful to help people become aware of the value of this corridor.”

Nothing less than a total upgrade of all aspects of the track would make the corridor viable and Peake said even with the money in hand to fix it, it could take as long as five years to get the line — including the Port Alberni leg of it — up to grade.

[Nominalis]

I've been asked if I have a personal vendetta against trains. It's also been suggested that I'm picking a fight because I'm bored.

Neither, I'm just tired from the last 30 years of glowing assumptions that rail can (profitably) exist here. This call for a train is nothing new, it was going on 30 years ago, the only difference today is that the internet makes the dream seem more likely. But rail is no closer to real in my not-so-humble opinion.

I'd love to post more often here, being a Vibrant Victorian, but my strongly worded posts will be considered confrontational which is not my intention, I just like healthy and lively debate. The idea of commuter rail in this area is surely not closed for debate.

We debate everything in Victoria, even where to put urinals, and if re-introducing rail to the island is so "on track" then my opinions won't de-rail it.

I've lived here all my life and have seen some crazy schemes waste huge amounts of taxpayers dollars. Before we commit to this I simply feel we need more than an ideal to base our decisions on. The best local study shows rail won't work here until 2035 and that's the one that Ottawa's going to read, they won't care that OurCorridor's posted a picture of a child.

I've already posted clearly that I'm not "anti-train" or something. I love infrastructure, I love boats but I strongly argued against building the FastCats while I had no problem with the Super-C-Class.

You have no idea how close I am to coming onboard and advocating for the E&N tracks to be upgraded while "saving the planet" frenzy is throwing money everywhere. It's a good time to push for the upgrades to that right-of-way.

It's not a good time yet to try commuter rail in the CRD for many reasons which I have and will be posting as I find time. No apologies.

I do have a big problem with using children as political sledgehammers. OurCorridor needs to get a picture of a train up on their site if they want to be taken seriously. That manipulative picture of the kid set me back a lot in supporting your cause.

It's not fair to push every political point by saying "it's for the childrens future". That's pandering.

Reason #7 : The Alberta tar sands. They have the largest oil reserves in the world and the new Middle East is right next door to BC. Private automobiles burning gasoline are going to be the prevalent form of transportation in BC until long after we're all gone.

Internal combustion isn't going away any time soon. It's a mature, highly refined, efficient and reliable technology that has centuries of life left in it taking forms we haven't yet envisioned.

And we will be tapping our offshore oil resources in BC a lot sooner than the greens would like to think.

But hey, keep the dream alive, it really can't hurt anyone but the taxpayers and they already fund larks-a-plenty.

[G-Man]

All transportation is subsidized so to suggest that there is "profitable" transportation and asking that transit be profitable is crazy.

If rail got 10% the subsidies that roads get we would have a great rail network.

[UrbanRail]

I

Internal combustion isn't going away any time soon. It's a mature, highly refined, efficient and reliable technology that has centuries of life left in it taking forms we haven't yet envisioned.

I totally disagree with u on that. The electric engine is far far superior to the internal combustion engine.

And we will be tapping our offshore oil resources in BC a lot sooner than the greens would like to think.

We will see about that.

[van-island]

Yes the internal combustion engine is convenient given the energy density of gasoline, which allows great range. But electric batteries are catching up...

But of course this solves no land use, congestion, or pollution problems (production and disposal) associated with the car - electric, gasoline, or otherwise.

As for gasoline, there's also that nasty little problem known as peak oil. Oil has been $100/barrel for how long now? And predicted to rise even further! ...oops, forgot about that did ya?

Hurt the taxpayer? Who do you think pays for the highways? They are pretty much the MOST subsidized infrastructure in the history of the planet, and you're saying that public transportation is a lark?

Highways ARE public transportation, just a very very inefficient mode of it. We can do better.

Edited. (see below)

[Caramia]

Try to keep things civil, lively debate is great but lets assume that no one's ideas are "crazy" and that we all have brains.

[davek]

As for gasoline, there's also that nasty little problem known as peak oil. Oil has been $100/barrel for how long now? And predicted to rise even further! ...oops, forgot about that did ya?

Peak oil.

Hurt the taxpayer? Who do you think pays for the highways?

I don't know how highways are paid for, but if it's through gasoline taxes, then that's a user fee. If those same funds are used for mass transit, that's a subsidy.

[G-Man]

^ Just think how much money is spent every year on highway maintenance.

[davek]

^Where does that money come from? Sales taxes, income taxes, gas taxes...?

[Caramia]

In the USA fuel taxes go to highways. Apparently not so in Canada. From what I can gather it is coming out of property taxes (municipal) and income taxes (provincial share).

A few figures from an admittedly out of date article... sorry google wasn't kind to me tonight...

• More than $12 billion is spent each year to build and maintain roads in Canada.
• In the 2000 federal budget, $2.6 billion was set aside for a six-year infrastructure program (which includes, roads, sewers, transit, and water systems).
• Resolution is complicated by the fact that the federal government has largely delegated responsibility for roads to provincial/territorial governments, which in turn have allocated responsibility to municipal
• The federal government collects approximately $4 billion a year in gasoline taxes and invests about 5% of this revenue back into highways.

Thats from the Western Canada Transportation Association, I figured they were relatively credible as a source. http://www.westac.co...astructure.html

Sometimes, it seems, the funding is rather creative... For instance here where some 4.2km of highway is getting an upgrade out of a fund to help deal with the pine beetle problem:

The Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia will contribute to the upgrading of 4.2 km of highway to four lanes at the Wright Station Curves, between 100 Mile House and Williams Lake on Highway 97, the major north/south artery in B.C.....

...The Government of Canada will contribute up to $4.2 million for the project. The funding is part of the estimated total project cost of $11.2 million and comes from a $44–million federal commitment to fund transportation infrastructure projects through the Mountain Pine Beetle Program under the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative.

From http://www.tc.gc.ca/...7/07-gc034e.htm

[van-island]

Peak oil.

I don't know how highways are paid for, but if it's through gasoline taxes, then that's a user fee. If those same funds are used for mass transit, that's a subsidy.

Okay. Let's chalk the rise in prices (from around $10/barrel in the 1990s to over $100/barrel today) to China and India's spectacular growth. Let's assume that when worldwide discovery of new oil sources peaked in the 1970s - just as they did decades before in the USA - that a corresponding decline in production - just as happened in the USA - won't happen. (although there is already evidence that production has declined within the past few years, but let's pretend that the numbers aren't solid yet)

So what now? Let's plan for unlimited future oil reserves. How's that?

So with our growth economy, that means more cars, more highways, more suburbs, more pollution, more traffic congestion, more plastic trash from used cars. (Just for you, I'll leave out more traffic deaths, one of the modern world's biggest killers)

Yeah, just the type of world I want to see.

Or, we could choose a different world, one which many countries like Denmark, Japan, Colombia, and Sweden (just to name a very few) have already started to work towards. Lower traffic deaths, lower congestion, better pedestrian areas, bikeways, efficient rail transit systems...

What do you think? (I read in some of your other posts some nonsense about how the "free market" will provide people with the types of housing they want. Let me remind you that there is nothing "free market" about cars, roads and driving as it currently is. If we had to pay the full costs of our roads without government subsidization, most people couldn't drive. Take away the subsidies and then we'll see how many people would "choose" to drive.)

Thanks Caramia for the data.

[UrbanRail]

Just to get us back a little on topic.

Here is an article in the Cowichan News from March 26.

Island Corridor’s E&N grassroots funding campaign was a misfire
April 01, 2008


The E&N Railway needs more than $100 million to uprade the lines between Victoria and Parksville-Port Alberni.
As a kickoff to a grassroots campaign to fund a first-class railway for Vancouver Island, it was something of a misfire.

A phalanx of mayors, First Nations leaders, business leaders and public transit enthusiasts gathered earlier this month in the City of Victoria’s council chambers to announce what was in effect a repair bill — and a hefty one: $103.8 million.

The group, the Island Corridor Foundation, was formed in 2004 by 14 municipalities and several First Nations along the 225 kilometres of Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway right-of-way from Victoria to Courtenay and the 64 kilometres from Parksville to Port Alberni.

It bought the right of way, the tracks, ties, bridges roadbed, stations, and 13 rail cars, from Rail America in 2004 and now values the rapidly decaying line and property at $366 million.

“It’s still safe,” said Frank Butzelaar, president of Southern Railway of British Columbia, of the line his company has operated since 2006.

But there can be no ambitious expansion of service, Butzelaar continued, without a wholesale refurbishment of the line.

The news conference also announced, somewhat as an afterthought, the creation of the Our Corridor Coalition.

The distinction between the Foundation and the Coalition is the latter is designed as a lobby group the public can join to pressure government to fork over the $103.8 million for repairs to the line.

The main target of lobbying is clearly a hitherto-reluctant provincial government.

The news conference headliners — which included Butzelaar, Island Coastal Economic Trust director Jack Peake, and Island Corridor executive director Douglas Backhouse — all spoke of positive discussions with B.C. members of the federal government such as Stockwell Day.

But the catch, Backhouse said, is the request for the federal money must come from the provincial government, along with the latter’s commitment to provide a fair share.

Responding to the news conference with underwhelming enthusiasm was B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon.

“I certainly wouldn’t even commit at this point to talking to the federal government about it, because I wouldn’t want to be laughed out of the room.”

The envisaged upgrade would see an increase in tonnage shipped over the line from 116,000 tonnes to 717,000 tonnes (worth $6.9 billion) according to discussions with existing users alone, the report stated.

Southern expects to spend another $31 million on maintenance alone over the next 10 years. This is money that wouldn’t be spent if the line were shut down. Also lost would be the $50 million Southern spends on wages.

The Island Corridor presentation cites an independent study that “suggests a very modest commuter rail service (three trains per day) could attract 280,000 riders per year” and take 700 cars off the road.

The ICF report itself predicts 1,400 to 2,300 riders a day within two years of a “modest” commuter run commencing from Duncan to Victoria.

But several skeptics have emerged, wondering, if the project is such a good investment, why the private sector doesn’t do the investing.

Says Maureen Bader, B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation: “If private investors, the Southern Railway for example, are unwilling to invest in the project, that’s a sign of just how profitable it really is.”

Wrong, said Peake, who admonished Bader for talking about the subject when he believes she didn’t have all the facts.

“We inherited an infrastructure deficit,” he said.

“When the Island Corridor Foundation was given the railway, the operator (Southern Rail) was hired on a lease position and he’s saying ‘It’s not my corridor, it’s yours.’”

While Southern Rail doesn’t want to put money in for capital expenditures, it is more than willing to plow profits back into the line for maintenance and other costs, said Peake.

Neils Veldhuis of the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, a free-enterprise think tank reinforces Bader’s reservation and points out British Columbians are strongly committed to their private vehicles, and businesses to the use of trucks.

But Peake counters the reason for that is commuters don’t have a viable alternative.

“Our population is aging and many of those folks would welcome an enhanced rail service,” he said.

A decade ago a provincial study into a commuter line concluded “the costs associated with the provision of commuter rail services far exceed potential benefits.”

Peake said that’s simply not the case, especially when you compare the costs of rail to what road repairs and maintenance take out of taxpayers’ pockets.

“When you think about $100 million that’s being requested for the rail corridor, compare that to the likes of the Bear Mountain interchange that’s looking at a $25 million to build,” Peake said.

“The average highway interchange is $15 million-plus and if you look at the work that was done along the highway at Dougan Lake, $10 million bucks was spent and what was produced? Maybe a little safer highway.”

Peake argues it takes large sums of money to do simple work on highways and makes the $100 million requested by the rail people look like a small investment for a 220-kilometre railway.

Even if the provincial government cannot be convinced economics justify the project, it might still be persuaded by the attractions of federal money earmarked for short-line railways, which might otherwise be lost to other provinces. And then there is the appeal of winning votes on Vancouver Island.

Signs that provincial resistance was softening emerged quickly. Falcon quickly changed his initial, negative tune.

He was looking forward, he now said, to working with the coalition, to bring the railway dream to fruition.

With a file from Mike D’Amour.

The last part of the article is interesting.

Signs that provincial resistance was softening emerged quickly. Falcon quickly changed his initial, negative tune.

He was looking forward, he now said, to working with the coalition, to bring the railway dream to fruition.

[davek]

Let's plan for unlimited future oil reserves. How's that?

Not very good. How about this? Let's recognize that all resources are scarce, and that government intervention distorts the signals that prompt development of new and better resources and the optimal use of existing resources.

So with our growth economy, that means more cars, more highways, more suburbs

Each of those has benefits as well as costs, so they aren't bad in and of themselves.

more pollution, more traffic congestion, more plastic trash from used cars.
(Just for you, I'll leave out more traffic deaths, one of the modern world's biggest killers)

The blame for each of these problems can be laid squarely at the feet of government for colluding with industry, intervening in markets, and failing to protect the commons which it stewards on behalf of the people.

Or, we could choose a different world, one which many countries like Denmark, Japan, Colombia, and Sweden (just to name a very few) have already started to work towards. Lower traffic deaths, lower congestion, better pedestrian areas, bikeways, efficient rail transit systems...

It is a common mistake to conclude that people aren't working towards a better world unless they empower government command and control.

What do you think? (I read in some of your other posts some nonsense about how the "free market" will provide people with the types of housing they want...

I have withdrawn claims that I cannot support, and will continue to do so, but you cannot just say I have posted nonsense. You need to show it. Otherwise, it's just a smear, and not even a good one.

If we had to pay the full costs of our roads without government subsidization, most people couldn't drive.

I'm sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. Subsidies come from taxpayers, not government. Any money that isn't taken from people to subsidize roads is available to people to spend on roads. Just the same, I'm all in favour of eliminating subsidies. Where do I sign up?

[van-island]

In the interests of staying on topic, I'll only reply to your last point.

It is only a logical fallacy if you assume that people are willing to spend the same amount on driving personally that governments spend without our consent.

Not to mention that you're assuming the redistribution of income by government that enables our roads to be subsidized currently (taxes from the wealthy and corporations) would immediately disappear, leaving the bottom half? third? fifth? unable to afford to drive. The fact that everyone can drive at the moment depends on the "intervention" by government that you seem to hate so much.

So should the wealthy directly pay more for road use? Or should the poor not be allowed to drive until they become rich? Oh wait, if the rich pay more out of pocket, then they're subsidizing the poor, even without government's help. But who is going to force the rich to subsidize the poor's driving? Government? Not according to you. Then who? Or are you saying that those darn poor people need to get rich before they have the privilege of driving?

Also, you're now saying that you believe that oil will peak? Or not? You're sending mixed messages.

And please name one "new and better resource" that will replace oil.

[davek]

It is only a logical fallacy if you assume that people are willing to spend the same amount on driving personally that governments spend without our consent.

No, sir. As I said, "any money that isn't taken from people to subsidize roads is available to people to spend on roads." That argument is sound even if the money is available for other things.

Not to mention that you're assuming the redistribution of income by government that enables our roads to be subsidized currently (taxes from the wealthy and corporations) would immediately disappear, leaving the bottom half? third? fifth? unable to afford to drive.

If you will check what you wrote, you will see that you are laying out your assumption. It is my suspicion that corporations and the wealthy are actually being subsidized by everyone else, and that the elimination of subsidies will improve mobility for the poor.

So should the wealthy directly pay more for road use? Or should the poor not be allowed to drive until they become rich? Oh wait, if the rich pay more out of pocket, then they're subsidizing the poor, even without government's help. But who is going to force the rich to subsidize the poor's driving? Government? Not according to you. Then who? Or are you saying that those darn poor people need to get rich before they have the privilege of driving?

You are concocting elaborate scenarios and asking for solutions to a problem you haven't shown to exist. So before you go any further, please provide your evidence for your claim that "If we had to pay the full costs of our roads without government subsidization, most people couldn't drive."

Also, you're now saying that you believe that oil will peak? Or not? You're sending mixed messages.

Beyond providing a link from a respectable scholar who argues that peak oil (should it occur) will not be a problem, I have not mentioned my position on it.

And please name one "new and better resource" that will replace oil.

When whale oil was the dominant energy source, no one knew crude oil was anything other than a substance that ruined well water. Who could have predicted it would rise to today's status? Just so, my inability to predict the next dominant source of energy (hydrogen? nuclear? solar?) is no kind of argument that there will be none. Even now, rising oil prices are spurring investment in many promising sources, as well as conservation technology.

I'm looking forward to your evidence that most people couldn't drive without government subsidization.

[jklymak]

I'd be all in favour of a gas tax that paid for the road system. I suspect it would be horribly regressive, but that could be offset by a progressive tax break. That way low-income folks who choose not to drive are doubly rewarded.

[UrbanRail]

Interesting arguments on both sides. Regardless of what happens, we have to rethink how we plan our cities and get away from planning based on the car and start planning based on people.

[jklymak]

Sure, but its kind of like drug dealers! So long as people want to live on big lots with two car garages, developers will find some way of selling it to them. Can't do it in Victoria, they do it in Langford. When that stops working, they'll move up the Malahat and out to Sooke. I don't think there is too much to be done about that except make people directly pay for the privilege. i.e. tax them for driving around everywhere, both for the costs of the roads and for the pollution they cause.

(Or incorporate a long ways out like Portland has and enforce an UCB, but since we can't even control Langford that doesn't seem likely to happen).

[Caramia]

When whale oil was the dominant energy source, no one knew crude oil was anything other than a substance that ruined well water. Who could have predicted it would rise to today's status? Just so, my inability to predict the next dominant source of energy (hydrogen? nuclear? solar?) is no kind of argument that there will be none. Even now, rising oil prices are spurring investment in many promising sources, as well as conservation technology

In the field of urban planning, the ultimate advance in conservation technology was to realize the enormous cost per capital of suburban sprawl the role of cars in facilitating it, and the huge savings generated when cities chose to zone in such a way as to replicated older (pre-car) urban patterns which involved placing density in nodes and along corridors so that the cost of rail, boat or other mass transportation could emerge as a sound business proposal. Understanding the feedback loop of transportation mode --> density zoning patterns ---> built environment --> consumer desire -->transportation mode etc has been one of the significant advances in conservation science of the last 50 years. Where states and nations have undertook studies to measure the cost to society as a whole and to resource consumption in particularly, the argument against sprawl has gained advocates.

As a microcosm of this discussion, take recent discussions in the medical and care sectors about the greying of the suburbs. As the demographic in suburbs around North America increases in age, the problem of how to deliver services to them has become acute. Take Meals on Wheels for example. The cost of delivering the program to the elderly in the urban core is relatively small. When one apartment building may house several Meals on Wheels clients, both the cost of gas and labour is drastically reduced. The opposite applies to a surburban cul-de-sac development where each customer can require as much as 10 or 20 times more fuel and time for delivery. The delivery of Meals on Wheels is just one example of how services to the suburbs are more expensive. Apply the same eye to transit planning, road building, plumbing delivery, etc, and you find the same pattern.

Considering the above, if it is the distortion of economic triggers for change that is the problem, and if it is new conservation technologies that are heralded as the solution - is it not socially irresponsible to advocate against alternatives to suburbanization?

[davek]

Wow. When I joined VV I had no idea I'd be such an active participant.

Considering the above, if it is the distortion of economic triggers for change that is the problem, and if it is new conservation technologies that are heralded as the solution - is it not socially irresponsible to advocate against alternatives to suburbanization?

It is when the alternatives are superior, but they aren't always. I am not promoting decentralization (I punch the pejorative use of the term 'sprawl' in the face!). I am promoting the rejection of the idea that using the very same methods which led to the unintended consequences of suburbs and car centrism (centralized planning authorities) is going to produce something superior.

BTW, I love rail, and I think limiting government would undo a great deal of the damage that's been done to it.