1976 - 2001 Transport 2000 Canada Celebrates 25th Anniversay
TransportAction is published bi-monthly by Transport 2000 Canada, a national federation of consumers devoted to the public interest in transportation.
Publié à tous les deux mois par Transport 2000 Canada, une fédération nationale d’usagers dont le but est de voir à l’avancement de l’intérêt public en matière de transport.
Bureau National Office
Suite 100, 117 Sparks St.
Ottawa, ON
P.O. Box 858, Stn. B
Ottawa, ON. K1P 5P9
Officers
President Harry Gow
Editor/Office Mgr. Bert Titcomb
Membership Martin Collicott
Tel. (613) 594-3290 Fax. (613) 594-3271 Hotline: 1-800-771-5035 EMail: t2000@transport2000.ca Web: www.transport2000.ca
Transport 2000 Canada was surprised and disappointed at the focus of parts of the recent Canada Transport Act Review Panel Report. Much of the emphasis for public passenger transport by bus, rail and ferry was on privatization, commercialization, and deregulation. To many of our members, there were great similarities with the bottom-line emphasis of the 1992 Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation. Indeed, we understand that some of the staff report writers were common to both documents.
Several members who attended the CTAct hearings were surprised at the emphasis on commercialization for public inter-city modes such as rail and bus. This was not evident at the hearings and appears to have been written into the report after the fact. Unfortunately, one correction to evidence and agreed to at the hearings, was omitted and the final report continues to imply very poor fuel economy for passenger rail compared to other modes.
Transport 2000 Canada hopes that you will take the politically difficult step to reject or at least modify parts of this report (especially section 11) which recommends further moves toward privatization, commercialization, deregulation, and “divestiture of responsibility for local service to other levels of government” (recommendation 11.1). We are very distressed to read that “the panel recommends that the policy of commercializing passenger services, including divestiture to the private sector and other levels of government, continue” (recommendation 11.8). If these recom-mendations are not changed, it seems very likely that succeeding cabinets or Ministers of Transport will seize on the report as a basis for very negative public policy decisions. We believe, Mr Collenette, that you personally would NOT support this.
While the report suggests a “funding agency” to distribute federal tax revenue to roads and urban transit, Transport 2000 feels this agency should also assist bus and rail services linking Canadian cities and towns across the country as well as transit within them. This would help to ensure fair treatment of all modes of transport.
In closing, we note that a fundamental premise of the Canadian Transportation Act Review Panel is that market-forces, private enterprise, and deregulation will solve most of the transportation problems in Canada. However, Canada is a large country with many remote regions and smaller cities and towns and rural areas. It is only subsidization, or cross-subsidization with a mode, that will allow all of Canada to be served equitably with a transportation system.
Mr. Collenette, our sense of your recent support for VIA Rail and air competition is that you support this idea. We hope this support will be evidenced by your personal analysis and treatment of the C.T. Act Review Report.
Yours truly
Harry Gow
Note: This letter was drafted by John Pearce with President input from both John Bakker and Dale Wilson.
Transport 2000 members all over the country were dismayed by the tired "thinking" in the report. Your association, ever quick to draw inferences, noted the common presence in both staffs of at least one writer. We suggest that staff saved themselves the agony of having to take account of evidence submitted, preferring their own nostrums to the travails of reflecting public input. Why bother holding hearings when you know in advance what you are going to write?
Transport 2000 Canada does welcome the recommendation to provide federal funding for transit, but wonders why only urban passengers should benefit, suggesting assistance to intercity and rural services as well.
T2000 does consider that the report opens the way for a discussion of the mandate for VIA Rail Canada: providing a public service network across the country or a dis-jointed series of disparate services, with the West the preserve of luxury tourist trains for rich foreigners.
Transport 2000 Canada advocates a VIA Rail Canada Act, similar to the Amtrak legislation, as proposed some years ago to the Senate Committee on Transport, in Ottawa, by John Delora of Detroit. This would not be the later Commons Bill that died on the Order Paper in the nineties; that legislative Trojan horse mandated a VIA subsidy diminishing to zero in a decade, Royal Commission style. (The current Minister gave that idea a royal heave-ho when he stabilized VIA`s operating funding and later added capital funds, in 2001).
A real VIA Rail Canada act would confirm the railway's duty to provide passenger transport services coast-to-coast and mandate realistic financial support to make this happen. VIA's powers to operate over the rail network would be stated, and means would be provided to ensure priority access and reliable operation of passenger trains. Any future Minister will be likely less sensitive to the need for public service passenger trains than is Mr. Collenette, so Transport 2000 Canada will have its work cut out for it in the new parliamentary session.
On another front, supporters of the railfreight alternative have been concerned that at the eastern end of the rail network, even CNR has been sending intermodal freight from Moncton and Halifax to Cape Breton by road.
This simply apes the behaviour of the coal mines that have been trucking coal for some distance parallel to the railway, not to mention the apparent inclination of the province to let a gypsum mine wreck Island roads by sending the product by truck rather than by rail. It is understood that business on the line will eventually pick up given new economic activities in the area.
This is why we hope that Regional Development Minister Cauchon would consider a transitional grant to the railway, much like that which he gave the railway in the Gaspésie for the interim while waiting for the re-opening of the Chandler paper mill. The Province of Nova Scotia might then find the courage to ignore trucker pressures and insist on rail haulage of bulk products, providing tax and other incentives to help make the rail alternative more attractive to shippers. This would reduce fuel use for these hauls by at least 75% and would save the Province many millions of dollars in road repairs.
Another matter that has kept our summer-sun-baked minds active is the Minister's part turn-aroiund on the subject of foreign (American) airlines providing service in Canada. From his steadfast "anti" position (which I have supported before the media), Mr. Collenette has moved to a stance where he says he will allow these airlines to serve such cities as Ottawa and Montréal on a cross-border basis while still not allowing intercity competition from the within Canada.
He admits that getting them to come may be difficult. They may have noticed that a majority of U.S. and Cnadian passengers prefer the more predictable service of Air Canada to bargain-basement service and atmosphere on existing cross-border runs. We will monitor this one, and remain available to intervene if there is any opportunity for public input.
To go back to VIA Rail, in answer to my question at the recent Orange Prize award-giving ceremony, Mr. Collenette did say that his Ministry was working on the idea, but did not say at what stage this had reached, if any. At least this gives us an opportunity to go back and ask where the process is now, and when we might see such draft legislation tabled, if ever. Members' support for this idea is needed in the form of letters to M.P.s, to the Minister and to the media.
All of this leads to the conclusion that Transport 2000 will be facing extra work and will need more resources and members to operate effectively, so your help in recruit-ment and fund-raising will be more than appreciated.
Harry Gow
The recent Smog Summit presented by the Toronto Atmospheric Fund provided many insights into our quest for a world sensitive to the health effects of climate change, smog and transportation sustainability. But lessons in “smoggery” were plentiful on the 7:00 a.m. bus from Kitchener to Toronto to attend the conference.
The traffic slowdown occurred 45 minutes after leaving Kitchener and 20 minutes earlier than was usual a decade ago. The bus switched from Hwy 401 to the new toll road 407 where we crept along at 20 mph beside sprawling walled Mississauga suburbs. Premier Harris’s pronouncement, “We are going to build more roads” seemed totally outrageous. It took over two hours to reach downtown Toronto.
At the Summit, the audience was told that what comes out of our tailpipes goes right into our bodies. It has been determined that smog causes 1,000 premature deaths in Toronto every year. Yet highway transportation, which damages our lives most, continues to be the most subsidized.
Global climate change could result in the spread of infectious disease such as the West Nile virus into Ontario. Vast shifts of money will be needed in health care as natural disasters, such as floods, droughts, severe storms double every decade and we run out of water, forests, and fuel.
The snow covers of African mountains are disappearing with the threat that the great rivers of Africa, like the Nile and the Niger, will dry up causing climate enforced migrations accompanied by enormous health crises. Although climate change was characterized at the Summit as the most critical threat to the planet, representatives from cities around the world gave illustrations of what must be done to reduce emissions by 50 %.
Setting hard targets is worth doing and they are achievable. Thousands of people can save small amounts of energy. In Melbourne, Australia, the travel patterns of city staff have been charted. Innovation begins at home. Helsinki planners allow no city deserts where there are only cars and nothing else happens. Land is taxed on the basis of its planned use, not its actual use.
Travel in Copenhagen is divided evenly with one third of trips each for cars, bicycles, and transit. Bicycle lanes exist on all streets! A Copenhagen family typically has one car and four bicycles. Tourists have the use of 5,000 city bikes. In Copenhagen, only 17% of pollutants come from traffic compared to 35% for other cities.
In Vancouver, all new transportation will be public transport. No new expressways will be built, and complete communities will be planned to reduce emissions. The Summit was told that in Portland, Oregon, all the elements of quality of life are being observed. In the Greater Toronto Area, all trends are going in the wrong direction.
Ron Neville, consultant to the Toronto Board of Trade, introduced a strategy for rail based transportation in the GTA. He told the Summit that the wealthiest cities have rail based transportation as a background to an integrated transportation system. Rail is the only surface transportation facility that will get large numbers of people out of their cars.
This plan would see light rail and an expanded GO Transit system provide frequent service with connectors to the subway system at many points throughout the city. The commutershed part of this strategy includes Kitchener-Waterloo, Barrie, and Niagara Falls. The network is intended to slow the growth of gridlock so evident on the Kitchener - Toronto rush hour bus.
Whatever it takes must be done to get the out-of-step Ontario government to stop lavishing billions of dollars on highways while providing nothing for public transportation. The region of Waterloo is studying a plan for a light rail spine, Cambridge - Elmira, as a backbone of an integrated public transportation system and we are on the commutershed map of the rail based strategy plan for Toronto.
The answer is not more roads, it’s fewer vehicles.
George Bechtel
Kitchener, ON
Operating hours will be:
“which have a reasonable potential to result in safety action or which generate a high degree of public concern for transportation safety.”
The TSB investigated the following accidents which occurred recently in the Ottawa region.
Why does the TSB only investigate accidents involving, airplanes, trains, buses, hot air balloons, and cruise boats? When will the TSB start to investigate all truck accidents which result in death or injury to the public?
Canadians are fed up with being innocent victims on the nation’s highways.
Using information recently made public by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, the CAA calculated that tractor trailers and other heavy trucks are involved in 12.5 per cent of fatal accidents in the province, even though those trucks make up only 2.6 per cent of the vehicles on the road. The CAA called attention to the issue in response to the Ontario Trucking Association’s claim earlier this month that “tractor trailers and their drivers are the safest road users in the province by far.”
Dave Leonhardt, spokesman for CAA Ontario, said “tractor trailers are clearly much, much more dangerous than other vehicles and it is irresponsible for the trucking association to try to whitewash that danger.” He also stated that while trucks are less likely to cause or be involved in accidents, the consequences are far more serious.
Both Transport 2000 Canada a the CAA have already stated their opposition to the government’s proposed new regulations on trucking hours of service. The proposal, which will be reviewed by a House of Commons committee in the fall, would increase the number of consecutive hours a truck driver can drive from 13 to 14.
Members of parliament should spend more time on the nation’s highways and find out what life is like in the real world. Many Canadians cannot afford to fly. Travel to many cities in Canada by rail is not an option as many services were slashed by the federal government in 1976 and 1981. What other travel mode do many Canadians have?
They couldn’t afford ad campaigns or lobbyists, they didn’t know how to win the media’s attention and even if they could have organized protests, they didn’t have any way get to them. These were second-class citizens.
If you doubt that claim, imagine that a construction strike had closed the Lions Gate Bridge to vehicle traffic. There is no chance that after 100 days the bridge would still be blocked. Government intervention - either direct or behind the scenes - would have the bridge reopened within hours, not months.
About 500,000 people a day used the buses before the strike; about one-third that number used the bridge. Drivers had alternatives to the bridge; about 40 per cent of transit drivers didn’t have access to a vehicle. The difference was the victims. A closed bridge would have hit the affluent commuters from West Vancouver who would have beeen unwilling to take a longer route or to walk. They would have called their MLAs and cabinet ministers, whom they would know, and they would have made their case in the media.
In the meantime, people dependent on the buses were losing work. Seniors were trapped in their homes, children and parents were missing medical appointments and businesses that relied on bus travellers slid toward bankruptcy.
Why did the BC Government take months before taking positive action?
How many accidents in B.C. were prevented by photo radar?
Alberta is the sole province left with photo radar. Nova Scotia wants proof that it reduces road fatalities. Manitoba is considering it, and Quebec is looking at implementing photo radar by the fall. Critics claim photo radar is a cash cow that does not prevent traffic crashes and speed-related injuries and deaths.
The Ontario Conservative government scrapped photo radar after being elected in 1995. There has been a noticeable increase in speeding on the highways in the province as a result. Road rage has also become a serious problem on our highways.
All provincial governments beg for more money from the federal government. Perhaps the provinces should reconsider some of the benefits of photo radar and use the money from this cash cow to subsidize public transport.
In Salt Lake City, ridership on the Utah Transit Authority’s Trax light rail line is now at an average of 20,000 passengers on weekdays. This is 43% higher than forecast.
In Denver, the Southwest light rail transit extension to Littleton, which opened in mid-2000, is now carrying up to 14,000 passengers on weekdays. This is 67% more than the original projection of 8400 passengers.
In St. Louis, the MetroLink light rail system exceeded its initial ridership forecast of 12,000 passengers by carrying 20,000 in its first year. This was 67% greater than forecast. Today, after eight years’ operation, ridership has reached the 40,000 level, already exceeding the 20-year projection of 37,000.
Ridership on the new Westside MAX LRT extension in Portland, Oregon, had exceeded the forecast by 22% by February 2000. By July 2000, Westside MAX ridership was already five years ahead of all forecasts.
Why do our provincial leaders continue to build more roads and widen existing ones?
Perhaps they should visit other cities to see what changes are taking place.
Improve Transit
Cut Car Use
Remake Streets for People
Goals
The provincial government’s reaction was to request that homeowners leave their cars at home and not use gasoline powered mowers to cut their lawns!
Has the Ontario Provincial government got the courage to ban the use of cars
when such conditions exist? One can only imagine the chaos that would result
in Toronto. GO trains operating with standing room only. Subway cars packed
like sardine cans. Angry demonstrations at stations because passengers could
not get on a bus, train or metro. Gridlock in Union Station. Serious injuries
to any one who accidentally fell on the stairs.
Start investing in mass transit now or face the consequences in the near future. Many U.S. cities have invested in light rail systems. Many systems are being expanded to handle the demand. Provide commuters with an alternative mode of transport.
Meanwhile in Ontario, the provincial government is more interested in building more highways or adding more lanes to existing highways. Both alternatives simply induce more traffic which leads to more congestion and more pollution.
A double set of railways tracks can handle the same volume as 16 lanes of highway. Which mode uses less space? Which mode is more efficient in moving large numbers of people? Higher efficiency means less fuel consumption which in turn means less pollution. It also conserves our natural resources. Future generations might benefit.
Members are invited to write to the MPPs and demand that the provincial government take positive action to construct efficient mass transit systems in our major cities. Canada is falling rapidly behind other countries despite what our Prime Minister says. The longer we wait, the more expensive such changes will cost.
Action is Required NOW
A Transport Canada report has revealed that more people, planes and vehicles have been turning up on Canada’s runways without clearance in recent years. The federal agency studied the frequency of these incidents, called runway incursions, and found a 145 per cent increase in four years - 257 incidents occurring in the year 2000.
The study did not identify one single cause, but Transport Canada said increased volume and complexity at airports could be a factor. While no lives have been lost in runway incursions, there were 48 incidents serious enough to warrant investigation by the Transport Safety Board last year. Calgary International Airport was singled out as the facility with consistently high numbers of incursions.
The group plans to lobby Madawaska-Restigouche MP Jeannot Castonguay, Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw, who represents the Moncton riding and is the province’s representative in the federal cabinet; and Transport Minister David Collenette with a plan to resume rail service.
VIA Rail cancelled the service between Moncton and Edmundston a decade ago, saying it wasn’t economically viable.