Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
The "problem", if you can call it that, is that the routes you desire to have rail service do not have the ridership demand to justify it. That's all there is to it and where the debate ends.
|
Unfortunately there's a little more to it than that. When it comes to government spending priorities a lot of it has to do with value judgements rather than pure economic utility. Over the last couple of weeks a few people have asked questions like, "Why should 1/2 of the country's population get 95% of the service?" These are ultimately questions of fairness or equity, which in turn is a nebulous topic that's inherently about social norms/values and personal perspective and therefore almost impossible to overcome by purely arguing facts and data. At its core, the concept of fairness comes down to whether a person or group feels they're being treated well, which is strongly based on individual perspective.
For instance, in thinking about a city's transit spending, one person may argue that there should be more transit service for community A because A is a poor area and it needs investment. Another may argue community B deserves it because it's wealthier, pays more taxes, and therefore deserves more services in return. Another may argue that community C deserves it because it's denser, resulting in greater ridership and therefore better returns on investment. Meanwhile community D says it's unfair for anyone but them to get it since it's been the longest since they've seen notable investment. They all believe their positions represent the true concept of fairness and are not going to change their minds.
People routinely value things for reasons other than pure functional utility and therefore aren't going to consider something like ridership levels to be the only justification for or against investment. As Jarrett Walker points out, this often comes up in transit debates regarding ridership vs coverage and there's no "stat" that one can present to overcome it. If one person predominantly values economic efficiency and another assigns greater value to aesthetics, user experience, or city/nation building, making arguments directed at one another based on one's own values is pointless. The other person will brush off such arguments simply saying things like, "It would be more successful if there was more investment." If there's any possibility to persuade one another on such issues, the first step is to fully understand what the other person's values are and why the person holds them.
In my case, i haven't said a whole lot on the issues because I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. Yes I love the idea of having the train, but with the current iteration of The Ocean, I value the idea of it's existence more than it's utility. Even if it were to return to daily service (more than doubling its schedule) I still wouldn't be using it because it's slow and I'd have to travel further (across the harbour) to get to it. Unless they were to re-open the Bedford station, and run at least twice a day (preferably more) it's pointless for me. Perhaps it might help some people, but the train makes fewer stops than the bus - including not stopping at the airport - meaning there are fewer people in its catchment. So, unless it became significantly faster along with the improved frequency (right now trip time is actually slower than motorcoach) which would require huge investment, I can't see it helping many other people either.
Perhaps the investment would be worth it in terms of GHG reductions, but that isn't really clear either as it might be more effective to fund green power generation, subsidize electric vehicles or improve intercity bus service. That's why my main concern tends to be The Corridor. From a practical standpoint I feel like it could be extremely useful to a lot of people due to the ridership potential, and from an aesthetic standpoint I also have an attraction to the idea/imagery of core of the country having a frequent rail network similar to those in other countries. We're so sparsely populated as a country I feel like that's the one region that's really well suited to passenger rail. I enjoy the idea of trains being more spacious and comfortable, ultimately the main purpose of trains is that they're higher capacity since they can be much longer than a motorcoach. But with smaller passenger volumes you run into the issue of either it not being as cost effective to maintain the track for just that service, or if the service shares the track with freight, the issue of the two interfering with one another. That's why The Corridor getting a dedicated track intrigues me.
But the fact remains that these decisions are not purely economic and utilitarian. I remember one class I was in at Dalhousie which explored the idea of Canada as represented in art and literature. One module talked about the railway and how it was the focus of some of Canada's earliest art not made by indigenous people. For instance, there were extensive advertising campaigns which included innovative posters intended to market Canada to wealthy European travelers in order to sell rail tickets and fill the railway hotels. These posters married the Canadian railways with magnificent scenery and ideas of adventure and wilderness, making them some of the earliest and most enduring images of Canada in the global media and public consciousness. The railways have continued to be closely connected to the idea of Canada ever since. I can understand why someone would value the idea of the railway being connected to every part of the country or why they maintaining that specific mode important despite arguments in favour of buses, etc.
The fact is, things like railways can have cultural, social, and traditional significance beyond their nominal function, and governments can and do choose to subsidize things for reasons other than direct utility or economic return. Whether or not one thinks they
should is always going to be at least partially a matter of individual values and priorities and that's ok. We can disagree as long as we can be nice and respectful to one another despite such differences. While I personally place a greater weight on the economic and utilitarian side of things (though I do place weight on both), to each their own.
Prev
Linear Mode
