Some measures to make a rail decision
I am writing to put some measure into the ongoing discussion on the future of the E&N rail corridor — be it redesignated for trails, rail or otherwise. It seems to me that those that still cling to the theory that rehabilitating the rail network to support freight and tourist transport do so without considering what measures or metrics we should use to make these decisions. Let me propose a few:
1. Environmental cost (carbon emissions). Which have the greatest environmental impact, cars, buses and rail? It depends on the number of passengers, of course, but most readers would be surprised to hear that the kgCO2 per kilometre cost of cars (driver only), car (two occupants), inter-city buses, inner-city buses and rail are: 0.22, 0.11, 0.0643, 0.1223 and 0.126 respectively (Ministry of the Environment, 2011, Methodology for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, p22, 23). Notice here that rail scores the worst out of this list despite what many may have guessed.
2. Relative cost — Is rail cheaper than road transport? We must consider here the road and rail infrastructure AND operational cost of running a bus or train. The proposed upgrade would cost $43M (From Victoria to Nanaimo). Compare this to other road infrastructure projects in the province. The Malahat improvement project is costing the country $34M and will surely benefit many more commuters than would access the E&N rail.
3. Relative risk — Is rail safer than the alternative? I suspect yes, however, it certainly increases risk to the surrounding community with respect to the many level crossings and exposed track that various cities would need to contend with.
4. Relative speed or convenience — Would the rail be more convenient than driving a car or taking a bus? Given the many level crossings, roughness of the track and historical speed, I suspect that save for just north of Victoria (where congestion is truly a problem), driving/buses would beat rail any day.
5. Opportunity cost — What is the cost of the lost opportunity for some other use? The corridor be used for trails with clear health benefits, mobility benefits for bike commuters, etc. But we could also consider the possible financial benefits for partial sale for other uses, be they institutional, commercial, housing (shock — horror) or otherwise.
6. Target audience — Who is the rail corridor for, anyway? I am all for supporting good commuting alternatives, but major expenditures to improve the tourism industry are not a priority for me.
7. Sexiness — Is it sexier to ride the train versus a bus or car? Absolutely! But, is this enough to justify the investment?
Clearly I have added little data to this conversation, but I will leave that to the experts. In the meantime, let us first decide on what metrics we use to make decisions, so we don’t get dragged through a debate without any measures to make good ones.
James Matthew Richardson
Duncan