The Future of Canada’s Passenger Trains. Are you on Board? Part 2

 

The federal government’s willingness to get rid of passenger rail extends beyond eliminating actual trains. Even symbolic references to passenger rail are disappearing. Passport Canada’s latest “Tips” brochure shows no rail pictogram on its cover. 

                                                                                                                     

The federal bureaucrats responsible for approving the brochure have forgotten that Canadians actually can cross the US border by rail from Vancouver, Toronto and Montréal. An unintentional lapse, perhaps, but it indicates how far passenger rail is from the consciousness of the federal government.

Fortunately, many groups are defending passenger rail transport as a viable and sustainable transportation option. Transport Action Canada  and its regional affiliates, the National Dream Renewed Project, the Island Corridor Foundation on Vancouver Island and other local and national organisations are campaigning for more investment to improve and expand Canada’s passenger rail network.

Your support for these organisations is crucial in the fight for Canada’s passenger rail service. Please consider signing up.

VIA to cut The Canadian?

VIA Rail Canada  was to announce service cuts  at its May 29, 2012 Annual Public Meeting. The announcement has apparently been postponed to June 27, 2012, after Parliament has adjourned for the summer recess. This is similar to the manner in which VIA Rail service was slashed on previous occasions – do the dirty work when Parliament is not sitting and the media is not focused on day-to-day government actions.

And, once again, the service cuts would disproportionately affect the eastern and western long distance trains.

The 1990 service cuts reduced services in the west from 14 trains per direction per week (daily service over two routes) to three (tri-weekly service on one route). This bare-bones service level is to be further reduced to two during the winter months. VIA’s transcontinental route should offer a minimum of daily service, with additional offerings between major city-pairs. Service should also be available on the southern CPR route from Winnipeg to Vancouver. VIA Rail Canada is not VIA Rail Corridor; it is supposed to serve all Canadians.

Service cuts are not the only way of dealing with operating costs. Other options are:
• Improve network connectivity.
• Partnerships to increase ridership and revenue.
• More efficient operating practices.

Consider the Skeena and Canadian, both of which serve Jasper. The Skeena used to depart Edmonton in the late afternoon, travel overnight through Jasper to Prince George and daytime from Prince George to Prince Rupert. Currently, it runs from Jasper to Prince George daytime, leaving Jasper minutes before the arrival of the train from Toronto and Edmonton. It stays overnight in Prince George and then goes daytime to Prince Rupert. On the return trip, it arrives in Jasper just after the train for Edmonton and Toronto has left. It still takes two train sets, but there are no sleeping cars (passengers are responsible for their Prince George accommodation). VIA treats this as a tourist train and not part of a passenger rail network. How much additional ridership and revenue would be generated if the Skeena and Canadian made connections in Jasper?

Or could VIA increase ridership and revenue on the Skeena, if it worked with local agencies and First Nations to improve transportation options for local communities along its route? The Skeena’s route parallels B.C.’s Highway of 16, the so-called Highway of Tears. A major issue for residents is the inability to travel unless one has automobile access. For those who don’t, hitchhiking is considered a viable option in spite of the danger potential. VIA partnerships with other agencies in the corridor could improve the lives of local residents and VIA’s economic and social bottom-line.

Operationally, VIA could make its well-used Corridor services more effective by using cab control cars as the rear car. Thus, VIA could eliminate the cost and delay required to turn train consists in Montréal, Québec City, Niagara Falls, Sarnia and Windsor. This is common practice on other intercity and commuter rail operations. Turning trains requires additional time, labour and trackage, all of which increase operating costs. Eliminating the practice would reduce VIA’s costs, speed-up train turn-around time and have trains spending more time carrying passengers.

VIA Rail Canada needs to be the Canadian rail passenger network dedicated to serving Canadians efficiently, responsively and cost effectively. The key is firmly establishing VIA as a ‘real’ Crown Corporation with legislated powers, responsibilities and accountability to Parliament. The current ‘non-entity’ is governed by various Orders in Council, micro-managed by Transport Canada and Treasury Board and subject to the vagaries of anti-rail bureaucrats. With a properly legislated VIA, the company could concentrate on building a rail passenger network that integrates with other carriers – local and intercity transit, ferries and remote air services – and serves all Canadians.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Canada Line Service Issues

Transport Action BC has ongoing concerns with certain aspects of Canada Line (CL) performance and the seeming unwillingness of TransLink  to hold the concessionaire – InTransitBC  and Protrans BC  – publicly accountable for any shortcomings.

Significant service disruptions occurred on April 16, 2012, inconveniencing customers for most of the service day. The disruptions, centred on Olympic Village Station and affected service on the entire line. Anecdotal evidence from a TABC member indicates sporadic and crowded service. Possible cause(s) of the disruption have not been publicly released and media coverage of the incident was minimal.

Stalled train problems were also experienced at Olympic Village Station on the evenings of April 13 / 14, 2012. Again anecdotally, another TABC member heard that computer control issues requiring staff to monitor trains were, relatively, more frequent, prior to the April 16 incident.

It is unclear if these various incidents are related as there has been no public accounting.

Transport Action BC requested a detailed, open and public post-mortem on the disruptions. The Canada Line’s operating company has passed the two-year “learning curve” allowed in its contract . Performance penalties should be considered as part of TransLink’s response to the disruptions.

Furthermore, evening maintenance has affected Canada Line service many times in the past 18 months. This may be justified, but it seems excessive for a system less than three years old.

We are concerned that the perceived lack of action holding the concessionaire publicly accountable for Canada Line performance jeopardizes TransLink’s credibility and its ability to provide a reliable and attractive service. It also significantly weakens the original rationale to use a P3 model to build and operate the Canada Line.

Transport Action BC sent a letter to the TransLink Board on April 20, 2012 detailing our concerns but a response has not been received. This blog posting is an expanded version of the contents of that letter.

Public Transit Boosts Local Economies

Some intriguing numbers surfaced in media reports on the recent disruptions of Montréal’s Métro. The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montréal  and the Montréal Economic Institute  provided estimates of the economic impact (lost productivity) of the disruptions.  The Board of Trade estimated the 90 minutes of disruption cost the city’s economy $11,000,000 while the more conservative MEC estimated $9,300,000. Put positively, the Métro generates significant productivity benefits to Montréal’s economy.

Unfortunately, details on the methodology used to derive these numbers are not available. However, the number can be used to calculate an order of magnitude estimate of the value of public transit to a local economy.

Operating conservatively, I‘ll assume the productivity impact [PI] is a high estimate, given the political situation under which it was released.  Therefore, I’ve reduced it by approximately 50% to $5,000,000 per 90 minute time period [MTP]. Also, I’ll assume that most of the productivity impact of the Métro is provided during the peak hours when the system is at its busiest. Peak hours are generally considered as 06:00 – 09:00 and 16:00 – 19:00 or 6 hours / business day which equals four, 90 minute time periods:

• 4 (90 MTP) X $5,000,000 (PI / 90 MTP) = $20,000,000 PI for 1 business day.
• 20 (business days / month) X 12 (months / year) X $20,000,000 (PI /business day) = $4.8 billion PI / year.

Thus, Montréal’s transit system has a positive, $4.8 billion productivity impact on the city’s economy each year.

The Société de transport de Montréal [STM], which operates the transit system, has a 2012 operating budget of $1.23 billion. I’ve used the total budget number because the Métro and bus system operates as a network of interdependent modes – customers have to reach the subway somehow. Using the PI / year calculated above, we find that the public investment in Montréal’s transit system, through fares and taxes, generates an annual return of almost 400% in productivity impacts:

• {($4.8 billion PI / year) ÷ ($1.23 billion STM 2012 operations budget)} X 100 = 400%
• Eliminating the percentage gives a constant of 4, which I’ll call the TPI [Transit Productivity Impact]

Assuming, and remember we’re dealing with orders of magnitude in this discussion, that TransLink’s transit operations provide a similar boost to Metro Vancouver’s economic productivity, we can estimate the impact of transit using TransLink’s 2012 budget. TransLink forecasts that transit operations will cost $871 million and transit police $29.6 million for a total of about $900 million. I’ve included policing costs in the calculation because their presence adds safety, security and comfort to the transit system, thus encouraging ridership.

• $900,000,000 (TransLink 2012 transit operations budget) X 4 (TPI Factor) = $3.6 billion PI / year.

Thus, in spite of all the negative publicity TransLink has received lately, the organisation still provides significant economic benefits to the region it serves. Admittedly, this is a very basic analysis based on an unsubstantiated number from a media release in a highly charged environment. However, it should help us move away from the image that public transit is simply a costly drain on taxpayers which only benefits a few (the “loser cruiser” attitude). Public transit must be treated as a valuable, respected, public investment tool that, in addition to social and environmental benefits, also has significant economic ones.

 

Next Meeting – 23 May 2012 (Wed) Vancouver

Transport Action BC’s next meeting is planned for Wednesday, 23 May 2012 from 17:45 to 19:45 at the Vancouver Firehall Library at West 10th and Granville. Our Annual General Meeting will be from 19:00 – 19:15.

Location of meeting

 

 

TransLink’s 2013 Fare Increase

Transport Action BC has responded to TransLink’s request for a major fare increase in 2013. The following issues were submitted to the TransLink Commissioner for his consideration as part of his review of TransLink’s request.

Our concerns are with the timing of the fare increase and about transit service and ancillary operations. We feel these issues should be addressed as part of the fare review process. We are not, a priori, against fare increases, as long as they are justifiable to maintain and improve service on a system that is already efficiently run.

  1. Timing:

The 2013 fare increase, if approved, would be implemented just prior to the Compass smart card fare system. Item 15 of the Fares Questions and Answers (Q&A) on the TransLink Commissioner’s web site states TransLink plans significant changes to existing fare media with the Compass card implementation, although no details are presented.

This begs the question of why is TransLink proceeding with the 2013 fare increase when its implementation period may be less than a year? There are costs to implementing a fare increase and similar work will be required as part of the Compass card implementation. This could lead to TransLink being questioned on the efficacy of two fare changes in a short time period. From an outsider’s perspective, it would be seem sensible to bundle all fare changes into the Compass roll-out, eliminating one set of fare change costs and reducing public annoyance over back-to-back fare changes, including a significant fare increase.

    2. Transit Service Operations:

TransLink states (Item 4, Q&A), a fare increase is needed to continue existing service levels and maintain the transit system in a state of good repair. However, TransLink should justify that the transit system is currently operating as efficiently as feasible.

 Transit system users will notice that TransLink’s vehicles spend large amounts of time parked at route terminals or waiting at timing points along a route. Anecdotal observation suggests this unproductive time is excessive. Examples are short headway routes where 2 – 4 vehicles may be observed at a terminal or twenty minute headway services where a following vehicle arrives at the terminal before the preceding vehicle has left. Layovers may be necessary for service recovery and shoulder period schedule adjustments. They should not be used as a scheduling convenience or de facto method of providing Operator breaks to avoid the rigours of contractual negotiations with the Canadian Autoworkers Union, WorkSafe BC and / or the Ministry of Labour.

By way of comparison, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) allows its Operators to arrive at terminals 2 minutes before the vehicle’s scheduled departure time. Operator breaks are provided as part of the Operator’s schedule, not the vehicle’s schedule. This keeps vehicles moving and picking up passengers.

A transit vehicle is an investment of several hundred thousand dollars. To have such an investment sitting idle for a significant portion of its working day (up to 20 minutes per trip in some cases) is not an efficient use of an expensive resource.

Additionally, as more frequent services are introduced, do lengthy layover times lead to unnecessary vehicle purchases to provide that service? Excessive vehicle requirements increase space needs for terminal layover space and garage and maintenance facilities. Optimising schedules to minimise lengthy layovers could result in capital and operating cost savings through reduced vehicle needs.

TransLink should state that unproductive schedule time is minimised and schedules are optimised for service efficiency and cost effectiveness. This would support its case that the fare increase is needed to maintain the current system in a state of good repair and ensure service expansion is effectively implemented.

Routing inefficiencies in the system should also be validated and justified by TransLink. There are deviations from grid routing that may have been necessary at one time but should be re-evaluated in terms of ridership served, overall route ridership, and impact on route mileage and service hours to ensure they are still viable.

To its credit, TransLink has initiated the Service Optimization project which has led to service adjustments by re-allocating resources from some lightly used services to areas of overcrowding. This initiative is laudable and should be a permanent part of TransLink’s service operations design. However, the optimizing process and analysis should be more transparent to the public and politicians in order to rigorously support changes, particularly service reductions.

A rigorous, robust and transparent service operations design process enables TransLink to resist political expediency in allocating its limited service resources. The South of Fraser area has received significant increases in transit service, possibly due to political pressure resulting from claims that Surrey residents “pay” much more to TransLink than they receive in service. Future increases to transit service, anywhere in TransLink’s service region, must be based on clear evidence that that is the best use of those resources, not the politically convenient one. Any deviation from this policy must have clear lines of responsibility and accountability published.

Once service is established, TransLink and its subsidiaries should ensure that full use of available technology is made to monitor and regulate service. TransLink has a GPS-based AVL which monitors vehicle location and schedule adherence and allows two-way communication between Operators and a central control facility. TransLink should assure the public that the AVL is being effectively used to ensure transit service is operating as close to schedule as feasible. Controllers should be responding to transit service disruptions (delays, off schedule, surge loads, collisions, etc.) by proactively re-routing service, short-turning vehicles and otherwise adjusting the transit system to minimise passenger inconvenience.    

   3. Ancillary Operations:

 The roles and responsibilities of the Transit Police and Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) Transit Security group should be reviewed and clarified to minimise overlap, maximise co-operation and ensure that each group is truly necessary and making effective use of its resources. We have several questions on this topic.  

1. Is it necessary to have two separate organisations, within TransLink, doing the same function – essentially checking fares?
2. Are large, police-special Dodge Chargers an appropriate vehicle for the CMBC Security Group?
3. The Transit Police seems to have defaulted to being the SkyTrain Police. What is its role vis-à-vis the rest of TransLink’s facilities and service region?
4. Can the public should be assured that the Transit Police are principally engaged in transit-related duties and not acting as a quasi-regional force dealing with matters more appropriately dealt with and funded by municipal forces?
5. Where do SkyTrain and Canada Line Attendants fit into the security matrix?

 None of these queries should be construed as stating TransLink’s security services are unnecessary, ineffective or wasteful. What is needed is clarity to and visibility around their functions, effectiveness, funding, and resource utilisation.  

   4. Concluding Remarks:

 We believe the above discussion items are valid issues relevant to the four considerations the TransLink Commission will weigh when analyzing TransLink’s proposed 2013 fare increase:  

1. Maintain TransLink’s financial stability.
2. Allow TransLink to provide planned service.
3. Encourage TransLink to minimise expenses.
4. Keep fares as low as possible.

 TransLink will have a more effective and supportable rationale for its proposed fare increase, if it publicly addresses our stated concerns. Openness and transparency can only assist TransLink make its case on a sensitive issue such as a fare increase. Formal public presentations and hearings should be considered.

Canada’s HSR Study “Industry”

Canada’s latest High Speed Rail Study  – The EcoTrain – was spoofed by the CBC’s, Rick Mercer . He skewers Canada’s penchant for producing HSR studies, as opposed to actually building an HSR system. According to Mercer, Canada has become the “world leader” in HSR reports, which can be judged by the quality of their paper stock and binding style. Unfortunately, there is more than a grain of truth in Mercer’s commentary. Even with the latest HSR study, there doesn’t seem to be much chance of Canada joining the growing list of countries actually building and operating HSR systems.

Vancouver’s Brill Trolley Coaches Interpreted

Something a bit different this weekend…

 

An exhibit of art photographs of Vancouver’s transit system opens for two days (Oct 15/16) at the Eastwood Onley Gallery at 2075 Alberta St. (at West 5th Ave., 2 blocks east of the Canada Line Olympic Village Stn), Vancouver. Hours are from 12:00 to 17:00. The artist, Andrew Firestone, studied the transit system and its vehicles extensively before creating his works. CC&F Brill trolley coaches are well-represented in the exhibition.

 

 

Unfortunately, the exhibition was a disappointment to this writer. The gallery is small and only a fraction of the on-line works were displayed. However, the works themselves are attractive and colourful. The artist has successfully combined small transit elements – logos, tokens, signs – with exterior and interior photographs of transit vehicles. The resulting montages are well-balanced and pleasing to the eye. The exhibit is worth a visit if you are in the neighbourhood.

 

Good News for Vancouver Island Rail (E&N)

The Island Corridor Foundation (formerly the E&N Railway on Vancouver Island) received some good news on June 28, 2011. The B.C. government agreed to provide funding for much needed track maintenance, albeit with provisos.

As a starter investment, the province will provide $500,000 to perform safety evaluations on the rail line’s 40 bridges. An additional $7 million will be provided, once the bridges are determined to be safe, AND when the ICF has found other partners willing to invest another $7.5 million. The obvious ‘other partner’ is the federal government. Local MPs are working to ensure federal support for the maintenance project.

Coincidentally, this funding announcement comes almost a year to the day, after the province released a major evaluation study on the E&N. The report has a detailed analysis on commuter rail, freight activity and potential, passenger rail scenarios and tourist train possibilities.

                                                                                                 

Transit Rider “Pass-ups” in Vancouver

The Vancouver Sun analyzed transit passenger “pass-up” data provided by Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC - TransLink’s main bus service Operator). The newspaper found four routes where “pass-ups” occur much more frequently than all other routes – 22 Knight-MacDonald, north and south of the Burrard Bridge; 25 Brentwood Stn-UBC along much of the route; 49 Metrotown-UBC between Victoria Drive and Cambie Street ; and 99 Broadway Stn-UBC at several main intersections.

Several CMBC managers and the Canadian Auto Workers (Operators’ union) president provide insight into the “pass-up” problem and reasons why it is difficult to address.  A fixed service hours budget and limited depot space preclude simply adding more buses. Replacing 40’ buses with articulated ones requires changes to stop lengths and rebuilding loops with tight turning radii. Apparently, CMBC ‘encourages’ its Operators to maintain consistent vehicle spacing between buses but headway consistency is a route supervision (i.e. management) issue. Operators have enough to concern them without having to wonder how far their bus is from the one ahead.

The ultimate solution, according to TransLink, is the “Compass” smart card that will be implemented in 2013. This will allow TransLink to offer different fares at different times of the day. Higher fares in the peak periods could encourage some customers to shift their travel times, potentially providing some relief on overcrowded routes.

However, the article doesn’t question if CMBC is making the most efficient use of TransLink’s buses. Regular transit users know that Vancouver’s buses spend much time at terminals and certain intersections not moving.

                                   

There are valid reasons for idle time; it allows vehicles to get back on schedule and provides Operator breaks. But, given overcrowding problems, is so much slack time the most effective way to solve these issues? Are there other ways to keep buses on schedule and provide Operator breaks but keep buses moving and picking up customers? Experience elsewhere suggests there is.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), for example, allows Operators to arrive at terminals, a mere two minutes before their scheduled departure time. It still manages to run an effective service (one of the highest fare box recovery ratios in North America) and provide Operator breaks. It does this using on-street Route Supervisors and electronic vehicle tracking. Service adjustments are made ‘on the fly’ to meet customer demand and return vehicles to schedule. Operator breaks are provided as part of the Operator’s schedule and not the vehicle’s schedule, thereby keeping vehicles in service and picking up passengers. The TTC also implements schedule changes much more frequently than most transit systems (8-10 times / year vs. 4 times / year). This allows it to be much more responsive to changes in passenger loads by re-assigning service from lower performing routes (and route segments) to those with crowding issues.

Closer to home, a Seattle transit system audit estimated savings of up to $23,000,000 by tightening bus schedules. Vancouver may not be directly comparable to Seattle but this is an order of magnitude estimate of potential savings that could be used to revamp bus schedules to alleviate the “pass-up” problem.

There may be contractual, operational and political issues that prevent CMBC from overhauling its bus schedules and operational procedures but shouldn’t TransLink and CMBC assure taxpayers that they are using the current bus fleet most efficiently?