1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose
This report is intended to provide
background information dealing with the potential use of existing rail
corridors for regional rail purposes in six of Canada’s major urban centers:
Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. These cities were selected to address both
the three largest urban areas and a sampling of the situation throughout the
rest of the country. The research was
specifically directed to investigate the degree to which the abandonment of
rail corridors may result in the loss of a potential use of the corridor for
regional rail systems.
This report has been prepared in the
context of and with the benefit of the report prepared for the Review Committee
by Richard Soberman entitled “Public Transportation in Canadian Municipalities
– Implications for the Canada Transportation Act and the Federal Role in
Transit.” Dr. Soberman has described
the current status of regional commuter rail systems in Toronto, Vancouver and
Montreal and provided a comprehensive understanding of the role and function of
regional commuter rail as an aspect of public transit. Dr. Soberman has outlined the implications
of railway rationalization for commuter rail agencies as being:
§
“certain routes may be discontinued, thereby precluding
opportunities to continue service and expand markets: and,
§
“the diversion of traffic from abandoned routes in
combination with growth in freight traffic on the remaining routes of the
rationalized system routes may limit possibilities for increasing the frequency
of commuter services.”
Dr. Soberman
anticipates that “within relatively short periods of time, commuter rail
agencies could be faced with decisions regarding the acquisition of routes in
order to continue or expand services.”
In this context our
report looks specifically at the urban form anticipated for the six cities to
determine to what degree commuter rail may play a role in the urban
transportation system, and as a consequence to what degree the abandonment of
rail corridors would represent lost opportunities to enhance future urban
mobility.
To assist in narrowing the scope of
this question, the following parameters were established:
§
Rail corridors were defined as all corridors indicated in
the Canadian Railway Atlas published in 2000.
§
Any route was considered as potentially abandoned as
consolidation may make even main lines redundant.
2. BACKGROUND ON TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Our
urban structure Is changing and will continue to change
Canadians
are witnessing a fundamental change in the structure of the cities in which
four out of five of us live, work, and play.
This change is manifested geographically, but has its roots in economic
and technological trends. While central
cores of cities remain a key element of urban economies, the arrival and
diffusion of new transportation and communications technologies has eroded the
traditional relationships among downtown, suburban, and ex-urban (urban shadow)
areas. This change represents the next
step in a progressive economic process of spatial redistribution of uses that
has been shaping North American cities for over one hundred and fifty years,
since the Industrial Revolution began a period of rapid urbanization in the mid
nineteenth century.
After
1970, as manufacturing began to decline and service sector uses grew in
importance, fundamental changes also occurred in the form and structure of land
uses. Suburbanization had been, until
the 1980s, a largely residential phenomenon – the majority of people lived in
suburbs but still worked in central cores or in industrial areas. But beginning in the 1980s, commercial uses
began to leave central areas and inner ring neighbourhoods to locate in new,
low-density suburban nodes. The author
Joel Garreau coined the phrase ‘Edge City’ to describe these new places, which
American policymakers soon identified as key growth nodes:
The spatial form of U.S. metropolitan areas
has evolved significantly in the last 20 years. The accepted picture of the metropolitan area as a place with one
economy, located in downtown skyscrapers and inner ring factories, is no longer
valid. Now, 57 percent of office stock
is in the suburbs, up from 20 percent in 1970.
Today the bedroom suburb, little more than a home to workers commuting
to the central city, is rare.
Source: The Technological Shaping of Metropolitan America, Congressional Budget Office, 1995.
This
trend is as apparent in Canada. What
were once dormitory suburbs are now increasingly urbanized metropolitan areas
outside the central city that, like the core, are places for both living and
working. Activity which was previously
associated with inner-city locations has spread to suburban and ex-urban areas,
including wholesaling, retailing, consumer services, and distribution/logistics
industries.
The
outmigration of businesses from the core was driven by both push and pull
factors. Traffic congestion, the
difficulty of parking, and high prices, pushed businesses to search for
alternatives elsewhere. At the same
time, the expansion of road networks in formerly rural areas, the continually
declining real costs of automobile ownership, and the easy availability of
large parcels of cheap land attracted firms in a variety of sectors to
relocate. Further, new communications
and distribution technologies were continuing to free businesses from their
traditional ties to core locations.
These
changes are in evidence in the evolution of the growth of our major cities over
the past thirty years. During this
time, the urban structure has changed from one dominated by the downtown
employment centre, to one with many centres of economic activity and
concentrations of employment. Regional
transportation access to the 'new' employment centres, while supplemented by
public transit, remains focussed on road facilities, primarily from the major
limited access highways. Many people both
live and work in the suburbs and rarely visit the central city; others still
commute to the core for work, but patronize retail, personal, business,
consumer, and social services in the suburbs.
This
is not to say our urban centers are “hollowing out”, as some commentators have
suggested. Toronto, Montreal, and
Vancouver have also witnessed extensive growth in urban sub-centers,
complementing their established central areas.
International immigration continues to be focused on our largest urban
centers, a trend which is unlikely to change in the near future. Infill development and intensification of
uses has increased densities in many older areas of Toronto and, to a lesser
extent, Montreal. Gentrification of
older urban neighbourhoods continues in all three large centers, and in many
other Canadian cities. Together, these
trends have produced a demand for land within urban areas that is both
increasing pressure for suburbanization and making urban lands more valuable –
which in turn makes the location of new transportation corridors more
difficult. Recent pressures for
potential alternative uses of the Canadian Pacific ‘Arbutus’ corridor in
Vancouver are a good example.
These
shifts in the geography of urban areas are producing new economic roles for
both central cities and their surrounding regions. These roles will demand different transportation networks that,
while still predominantly auto-oriented, may allow the opportunity for a
dramatically increased role for inter-city rail transport. In short, as edge cities and satellite
cities continue to grow and become more economically diverse, they are likely
to become more viable centers for mass transit service.
Travel demand
will continue to increase
As described above, the majority of
growth over the past few decades and the majority of the projected growth has
occurred and will continue to occur in areas not well served by rapid transit
or public transit generally. This
relationship is symbiotic – as growth has occurred in areas not well served by
transit, it has naturally resulted in the creation of urban forms that are
auto-oriented rather than transit-oriented, contributing to road congestion.
Today,
most of the largest Canadian urban centres regularly experience high levels of
congestion on arterial roads and expressways during the peak period. In some centers, such as Toronto and
Vancouver, traffic congestion has become particularly acute. For example, some 60 percent of the freeway
network in the Greater Toronto Area operates at unacceptable levels of traffic
congestion during morning and afternoon rush hour periods.
There
is no clear quantifiable measure of traffic congestion. In very real terms, congestion is measured
by most of us by how long it takes to get to or from work or school. One strong indicator is the unpredictability
of travel times. A recent speed/delay
study showed rush hour average speeds of 75 km/hr. and 33 km/hr. on consecutive
days on the same section of Highway 401 in Toronto. This impact of this variation in travel time bears directly on
driver frustration and quality of life, as well as the cost of goods movement
and public carrier operations.
Without
changes to the current trends, corporate and personal relocation decisions will
continue to move development outside major urban centers in Canada. Decreasing travel speeds, increasing
commuting times, the impact of incidents and the tremendous reduction in
available capacity have all resulted in an increasingly unpredictable
transportation network that is beginning to have severe implications for driver
frustration, quality of life issues and the economics of goods movement.
Edge cities
and satellite cities will grow
|
Fastest Growing
Canadian Cities 1991-1996 |
|||
Name
|
Pop
1991 |
Pop
1996 |
%
Growth |
|
Courtenay
(B.C.) |
44,523 |
54,912 |
23.3 |
|
Barrie
(Ont.) |
97,150 |
118,695 |
22.2 |
|
Kelowna
(B.C.) |
111,846 |
136,541 |
22.1 |
|
Chilliwack
(B.C.) |
54,962 |
66,254 |
20.5 |
|
Abbotsford
(B.C.) |
113,562 |
136,480 |
20.2 |
|
Nanaimo
(B.C.) |
73,547 |
85,585 |
16.4 |
|
Duncan
(B.C.) |
30,924 |
35,803 |
15.8 |
|
Penticton
(B.C.) |
35,823 |
41,276 |
15.2 |
|
Vernon
(B.C.) |
48,139 |
55,359 |
15 |
|
Kamloops
(B.C.) |
74,353 |
84,914 |
14.2 |
The most likely consequence of an expanding,
auto-oriented urban region is a shift of economic activity and housing
development to more accessible centres in the urban hinterland. This means that ‘satellite cities’ – medium
size centers within an economic region centered on a larger, metropolitan
center - will be the location of choice over the next twenty years.[1] This trend is already in evidence in Canada,
as the chart and table below demonstrate.
According to the chart at right, cities in the 50,000 to 250,000
population range – which most satellite cities fall into - showed the fastest
growth rates in the country over the period 1991-1996, the last years for which
census data is available. Further, as
the table below indicates, of the top ten fastest growing cities in Canada over
the same period, six are cities within one hundred kilometers of either Toronto
or Vancouver. Moreover, all ten are
cities of between 40,000 and 140,000 population (1996). While this information is somewhat dated,
the Study Team’s experience with growth rates in communities across Canada
during the late 1990s is consistent with these trends.
In
some ways the future structure of Canada’s largest cities is likely to reflect
the experience of several centers in the United States, including among others
the cities of Atlanta, Boston, Houston, and Phoenix. As our cities evolve into multi-centred regions, a key challenge
will be to maintain quality of life and the opportunity to pursue differing
lifestyles within a single urban area.
Exclusive
reliance on the expansion of the road network is unlikely to be possible. A transportation network is needed that
takes advantage of the historic and new activity centres and links these with
high capacity transit. These cities all
currently have road and transit networks that can feed a regional rail
link. In most cases there is land
available for parking and local transit systems that focus on the local
downtown or activity centre.
The next twenty years offer a reasonably certain future in some respects
We are very likely,
over the next twenty years, to experience:
§
increased levels of travel that will cause an increasing
extent and degree of traffic congestion;
§
the continued focus of growth at suburban and ex-urban nodes
– edge cities and satellite cities;
§
a consequent demand for an expanded commuter rail network to
offer an alternative to auto travel between and among these areas and from
these areas to city cores.
This future is
extremely likely to occur because significant changes to travel patterns occur
only very slowly, and because, in many urban centers, land use patterns are
already established through planning policy.
All current indicators point to these trends continuing for the
foreseeable future.
Increasing
environmental regulation is reducing available corridors
Over
the past fifty years, all regions of Canada have witnessed a steadily
increasing degree of regulatory control restricting the location, nature, and
amount of new development and transportation corridors. This control has largely resulted from an
increased public understanding of the cost to the environment of greater
automobile use, and to a lesser extent, of urban sprawl. It is reasonable to assume that the
accelerating trend toward greater awareness of environmental damage will
continue to produce greater pressure on policymakers to limit the consumption
of greenfield lands and in some areas, of development more generally.
Demographic
and social changes that will occur over the next thirty years are likely to
further strengthen public commitment to more stringent regulation. As the post-war generation moves into the
late stages of careers and early retirement, personal economic success will
take a back seat to lifestyle, health and security issues.
The
growth patterns described in the previous few pages will be shaped by the
application of these values. Planners
and designers will have to fit development (including infrastructure) into the
environment, rather than adjust the environment to accommodate
development. A greater justification
will be required for the generation of environmental impacts: the trade-off
equation (growth versus environmental impact) will become more one sided. The implications on the transportation
industry are the likelihood of much greater difficulty in locating new
transportation corridors.
Implications
for rail corridor abandonment
As it becomes
more difficult to locate new transportation corridors the value of the re-use
of existing rail corridors will increase.
The estimated property costs today of establishing a new 100 foot right
of way through an urban area is approximately $600,000 to $1.8M per kilometer
for the six cities surveyed. This estimate only includes the land cost,
assuming serviced industrial land, not the substantial costs for the approval
process and injurious affection to re-acquire a new corridor.
As the urban form spreads to a
polycentric pattern around our major cities, the need for longer range rail
corridors will become greater. New
markets for commuter rail services may exist in satellite cities which were
formerly too small to support a regular service. The transportation axes of one hundred years ago – the rail
corridors - may well see a renaissance, as growing road congestion and fast
growth in satellite cities produces demand for rail service. Ironically, the same forces that created
the dominant urban centre by allowing long distance commuting now may push us
back to a polycentric form that supports rail transportation.
3. CASE STUDIES - SIX CANADIAN CITIES
In order to
determine whether there was a potential issue related to rail corridor
abandonment, current and future land use trends in six cities were
investigated. The cities involved are Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg,
Calgary and Vancouver. The six urban
regions vary dramatically in size and area, from Halifax at a population of
330,000 over 2,503 km2 to the Greater Toronto Area at 5,000,000 over an area of 7,042 km2. Figure 1 provides a relative overview of
each of the city- regions.
Method of Data Collection
One of the
objectives of this study was to determine regional rates of growth and
development. The Canadian Census provided detailed demographic data for the
Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA’s) for each of the six urban centres. A CMA is comprised of a major city and a
number of the adjacent municipalities that StatsCan considers to have social
and economic inter-relationships. The CMA level of data was generally
consistent with the regional planning frameworks of the Greater Vancouver
Regional District (GVRD), the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the Greater Montreal
Area (GMA) and Halifax Region. In the case of Calgary and Winnipeg, both cities
exhibit strong central city characteristics and neither had a regional planning
model in place, although Winnipeg is in the early stages of developing a
regional plan.
The primary
sources of information are the regional growth management strategies prepared
by governments in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver.
There are a variety of reports available, including Official Plans, Strategic
Plans and Transportation Master Plans. This information was primarily obtained
through city websites, however in all cases, e-mails or telephone discussions
with planning staff provided a consistent level of detail.
Method of Rail Corridor Analysis
Our assessment
of the potential importance of existing rail corridors was based on a review of
the particular city-region’s future growth and settlement patterns and stated
policy documents. In some cases, this information was supplemented by specific
studies that identified a rail corridor for a specific transportation purpose.
Based on this
information the existing rail corridors were reviewed to determine their
potential for future regional rail use.
The corridors have been ranked according to the following system. The series of following exhibits depict
current and future growth patterns, the existing rail corridors, and the
potential for these corridors to serve a regional rail purpose in the
future. The potential use for regional
rail has been characterized as ‘priority’, ‘high potential’ or ‘low potential’
in order to simplify the analysis. The
characterization is based on the following definitions:
Priority Corridors - existing commuter
rail corridors
These
corridors are those that are presently being utilized by AMT in Montreal, with
122 km of routes, GO Transit in the Greater Toronto Area with 361 km of routes
and West Coast Express in British Columbia with one route of 65 km.
High Potential Corridors- identified
for commuter rail use
High Potential
Corridors are those that have been identified by a regional transportation
study or through our analysis as being important to the future commuter rail
transportation infrastructure in a city or region.
Low Potential Corridors (remaining
corridors)
Low Potential
Corridors are those without an obvious potential for regional rail use.
HALIFAX
Regional Growth Analysis
The Regional
Municipality of Halifax was established in 1996 through the amalgamation of the
municipalities of Halifax, Dartmouth, Bedford and Halifax County. The two
largest municipalities are Halifax and Dartmouth, which had a combined
population of about 180,000 in 1996.
The existing urban form and rail corridors are shown in Figure 2.
As Table 1
indicates, projected population growth in the Region is expected to increase to
387,371 people by 2021 or about 2,200 people per year. While this rate of growth is not high
relative to other Canadian cities in this study, Halifax is still experiencing
a moderate rate of suburbanization. This is evidenced by a decline in the
population of the City of Halifax and Dartmouth between 1991 and 1996 of about
2,800 people while Bedford grew by about 2,000 people. The suburban growth is
primarily in population as about 60% of the Region’s employment was located in
the urban core of Halifax and Dartmouth in 1996.
Figure 2
illustrates the Region’s anticipated growth areas over the next twenty to
thirty year planning period. It is apparent that future population growth will
contribute to suburban trends, especially in the case of land subject to
development pressure.
TABLE 1 – Halifax Statistics
|
1996 CMA
Population |
332,518 |
|
2021 CMA
Population |
387,371 |
|
1996 City
Population |
113,910 |
|
Forecast
Annual Growth |
2,200 |
|
1996 Transit
Modal Share |
10.9% |
|
Municipalities
in CMA |
10 |
|
City Area |
79 km2 |
|
Regional
Area |
2,503 km2 |
|
Regional
Rail Corridor Length (est.) |
35 km |
Rail Corridor Analysis
The Region of
Halifax is served by a single primary rail line that splits at Windsor Junction
and travels on either side of Bedford Basin and Halifax Harbour to serve the
cities of Halifax and Dartmouth. This is the only corridor that serves the
Regional Municipality of Halifax.
Figure 2 identifies this line as a high potential corridor to serve
long-term regional commuting demands. A portion of this corridor on the Halifax
side features a grade separated, double track, one track of which CN is
proposing to remove in the spring of 2001.
MONTREAL
Regional Growth Analysis
The Greater
Montreal Area is the second largest urban area in Canada. The CMA established
by StatsCan includes 112 municipalities, however many of these communities are
presently involved in a program of municipal restructuring. The existing urban
form and rail corridors are shown in Figure 3.
As Table 2
indicates, the population in the CMA is expected to increase to 4,031,000
people by 2021 or about 28,000 people per year. This projected high rate of
growth has caused the Ministčre des Transports to prepare a comprehensive
Transportation Management Plan for the Greater Montreal Area. This Plan
proposes a series of strategies to maintain connectivity between population
growth in the urban fringe and the focus of employment opportunities in
downtown Montreal.
TABLE 2 – Montreal Statistics
|
1996 CMA
Population |
3,326,510 |
|
2021 CMA
Population |
4,031,000 |
|
1996 City
Population |
1,016,376 |
|
Forecast
Annual Growth |
28,000 |
|
1996 Transit
Modal Share |
20.3% |
|
Municipalities
in CMA |
112 |
|
City Area |
177 km2 |
|
Regional
Area |
4,024 km2 |
|
Regional
Rail Corridor Length (est.) |
600 km |
Rail Corridor Analysis
The Greater Montreal Area is served by
four existing commuter rail lines, two of which have recently been initiated
and all of which have been designated as Priority on Figure 3. The first line serves the western portion of
Montreal and extends west from the downtown, past Dorval International Airport
and off the island to the community of Rigaud located about 50 kilometres from
the downtown. The second commuter train extends north-west from the downtown to
the community of Deux-Montagnes. The
third line extends from the area of Montreal West across the Mercier Bridge to
the community of East Delson/Saint Constant. The fourth commuter rail line
service travels north-west from the downtown to the community of Blainville
located about 30 kilometres from downtown Montreal.
The City’s Transportation Master Plan,
prepared in April of 2000 proposed the establishment of two other commuter rail
services. The first proposed line extends south and east from the downtown
across the St.Lawrence River to the community of Mont-Saint-Hillaire The second service is proposed to extend
north-east from downtown Laval about 30 kilometres to the community of
Mascouche.
TORONTO
Regional Growth Analysis
The Greater
Toronto Area (GTA) is the largest urban area in Canada currently with a
population of close to 5M, which is forecast to grow to 7.4M persons by 2031.
The Region is comprised of 30 member municipalities. The only regional authority is the Greater Toronto Services Board
whose mandate is to promote and facilitate coordinated decision-making among
the municipalities in the GTA. To date
the only service administered directly by the GTSB is Go Transit, the commuter rail
agency. The existing urban form and rail corridors are shown in Figure 4.
As Table 3
indicates, projected population growth in the region is expected to increase to
6,975,000 people by 2021 or about 123,000 people per year. This high rate of
growth is expected to continue the rapid suburbanization within and beyond the
GTA.
Employment is
increasingly dispersed throughout the GTA. Forecasts show modest growth in jobs
anticipated in the downtown of Toronto with the majority of growth in the
surrounding suburban jurisdictions.
Even with only modest growth in the City of Toronto, maintaining the
current levels of transit ridership would require doubling the capacity of the
existing network.
Figure 4
illustrates the Region’s anticipated growth areas over the next twenty to
thirty year planning period. These areas have been designated for growth by
local municipalities. Communities
poised to accommodate the highest amount of new growth include Oakville,
Milton, Brampton, Pickering, Ajax and Oshawa.
TABLE 3 – Toronto Statistics
|
1991 CMA
Population |
3,898,933 |
|
2021 CMA
Population |
6,975,000 |
|
1996 City
Population |
2,056,703 |
|
Forecast
Annual Growth |
123,000 |
|
Modal Share |
22.0% |
|
Municipalities
in CMA |
29 |
|
City Area |
506 km2 |
|
Regional
Area |
7,042 km2 |
|
Regional
Rail Corridor Length (est.) |
990 km |
Rail Corridor Analysis
The Greater
Toronto Area is served by 13 rail corridors, as shown on Figure 4. Four lines
extend in an east west direction, while the other nine lines travel north and
north-east from Lake Ontario. Shown as
Priority Corridors are the existing six Go Rail routes. Go Rail has also indicated the potential for
extensions to existing routes on the Toronto-Hamilton, Toronto-Georgetown,
Toronto-Stouffville and Toronto-Oshawa lines.
Potential new routes have been indicated for lines to Orangeville,
Pickering and Ajax.
WINNIPEG
Regional Growth Analysis
In 1998, the
Province of Manitoba initiated a study to review the opportunity to establish a
regional government administration for the City of Winnipeg and its surrounding
municipalities. This initiative began with the establishment of a panel
organized to review and make recommendations respecting the policy and
procedural framework guiding land use planning in the greater Winnipeg area,
referred to as the Capital Region. The existing urban form and rail corridors
are shown in Figure 5.
The Capital
Region Review Panel included 16 municipalities in its scope of study. This area
was slightly larger than the CMA, which has only 11 municipalities. Table 4 summarizes population data only for
the City of Winnipeg. In this summary, it is notable that the projected
population in 2021 for Winnipeg anticipates a decrease in population of about
750 people per year. The decrease is linked primarily to the combination of
continued out-migration of the working age population and an aging population.
To some degree, this decrease is also attributed to increased population growth
outside of the City of Winnipeg. However, this growth is very modest and
dispersed.
Notwithstanding
the projected population decline, the City is prepared to accommodate
additional residential growth within its boundaries. This is indicated on
Figure 5.
TABLE 4 – Winnipeg Statistics
|
1991 City
Population |
615,215 |
||
|
2021 City
Population |
599,800 |
||
|
1996 CMA
Population |
667,209 |
||
|
Forecast
Annual Growth |
- 750 |
|
|
|
Transit
Modal Share |
14.4% |
||
|
Municipalities
in CMA |
11 |
||
|
City Area |
464 km2 |
||
|
Regional
Area |
4,078 km2 |
||
|
Regional
Rail Corridor Length (est.) |
170 km |
||
Rail Corridor Analysis
Winnipeg,
being the western hub of train traffic has one of the most extensive networks
of rail lines in the country that extend from or pass through its downtown.
Four lines serve southern Manitoba, three extend to western Canada, three serve
northern Manitoba and three extend to eastern Canada.
Given
Winnipeg’s modest growth forecasts and present lack of a regional
transportation strategy, there does not appear to be any specific rail corridor
of high potential for commuter rail use. Notwithstanding, the Emerson Junction
CN line extending south, and the Melville CN line extending west have both been
identified as high potential corridors on the basis of their connection between
future development lands and downtown Winnipeg.
CALGARY
The City of
Calgary is also not organized within a regional government structure. The City
of Calgary accounts for about 93% of the population of the Calgary CMA. Calgary
anticipates a high rate of growth over the next twenty-five years. As Table 5
indicates, projections anticipate that Calgary will increase to 1,200,000
people by 2021 or about 17,000 people per year. The existing urban form and
rail corridors are shown in Figure 6.
Population
statistics in the communities surrounding Calgary also indicate strong rates of
growth. Notably, the communities of Chestermere, Airdrie and Rocky View all
experienced growth rates in excess of 4% per year between 1991 and 1996.
However, given Calgary’s size in relation to these communities combined with
its ability to sustain continued long-term growth, it is likely that the majority
of growth will occur within the City.
TABLE 5 – Calgary Statistics
|
1991 City
Population |
710,795 |
|
2021 City
Population |
1,200,000 |
|
Forecast
Annual Growth |
17,000 |
|
Transit
Modal Share |
12.6% |
|
Municipalities
in CMA |
8 |
|
City Area |
717 km2 |
|
Regional
Area |
5,083 km2 |
|
Regional
Rail Corridor Length (est.) |
100 km |
Rail Corridor Analysis
Four rail
lines extend out from Calgary’s downtown, as shown on Figure 6. Canadian
Pacific (CPR) lines extend north to Edmonton, west to Vancouver and south to
Lethbridge. A CPR line also extends east to Medicine Hat. CN lines run to the north and to the
east.
VANCOUVER
Regional Growth Analysis
The Greater
Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is the third largest urban area in Canada
and was established in 1967. The mission of the GVRD is to help protect the
quality of life in the Region and deliver services in an efficient and
cost-effective manner. The boundaries of the Region closely resembles the
Vancouver CMA which had a population of 1,831,665 people in 1996. The existing
urban form and rail corridors are shown in Figure 7.
As Table 6
indicates, the population of the Region is projected to increase to 2,740,603
people by 2021 or about 36,000 people per year. This high rate of growth
combined with the geographic development constraints has led to the rapid
growth in communities such as Coquitlam, Langley and Surrey, all of which
experienced growth rates between 4% and 5% over the 1991 to 1996 period.
TABLE 6 – Vancouver Statistics
|
1991 CMA
Population |
1,602,590 |
|
1996 CMA
Population |
1,831,665 |
|
2021 CMA
Population |
2,740,603 |
|
Forecast
Annual Growth |
36,000 |
|
Transit
Modal Share |
14.3% |
|
Municipalities
in CMA |
37 |
|
City Area |
113 km2 |
|
Regional
Area |
2,820 km2 |
|
Regional
Rail Corridor Length (est.) |
390 km |
Rail Corridor Analysis
The Greater
Vancouver Regional District is served by three rail lines with a number of
branch lines, as shown on Figure 7. All
of the lines, except those owned by BC Rail, travel east and south from the
City of Vancouver.
The Region’s
existing commuter train, the West Coast Express, is a regional rail service
that provides commuter service from the communities of Mission, Haney, Maple
Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Port Moody to downtown
Vancouver. This service has been in operation since 1995 and uses the existing
CPR line, as shown on Figure 7.
Our assessment
of these corridors was assisted by the GVRD’s Livable Region Strategic
Plan. Figure 7 identifies two rail corridors
with high potential for the establishment of future commuter rail linkages.
Summary
With the
exception of Winnipeg and Halifax, the cities studied are all forecast to have
relatively high growth rates with the majority of new development to occur in
suburban areas. The form and location
of development will offer the opportunity for some of the commuting market to
be served by regional rail services. In
terms of the potential use of rail corridors for urban transportation purposes
there is an order of magnitude difference between the substantial potential in
Canada’s three largest cities, and the other three centers studied.
4. THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE IN RAIL BANKING
The issue of
the protection of railway corridors for future transportation use has been
addressed in the United States of America through an Act of Congress passed in
1983. In that year the US Congress
amended the National Trails System Act to create what was called “The Rail
Banking Program”, in response to concern about the rapidly shrinking size of
the rail network in the United States.
Rail Banking was a method anticipated to preserve lines proposed for
abandonment through interim conversion to trail use.
By 1916 the
United States of America possessed the largest railroad system in the world,
with almost 300,000 miles of track connecting most of the settled areas in the
nation. Today less than half of the
original rail system remains and approximately 2,000 miles of track are
abandoned each year.
The legal status of railway lines in
many of the United States varies significantly from that in Canada. Most railway companies do not own the land
on which the track lies; rather they have easements over the land of adjoining
property owners. Unless those easements
are rail banked by converting them to a trail the railway’s rights are
extinguished and the land reverts to the adjoining property owners. This occurs when the Surface Transportation
Board authorizes the abandonment of the lines and the abandonment authority is
exercised by the railway company.
The lines
shared by Class 1 railway companies, the large railway companies, fall into
three categories. Generally, any of the
lines in the first category are viable.
When offered they have been purchased by new short line operators and
regional rail road operators who have typically been able to operate
profitably, rebuild traffic and preserve rail services to communities. In fact, the number of short lines in the
United States has more than doubled since 1980.
At the other extreme there are some
lines shared by Class 1 railway companies that are not viable and meant for
permanent abandonment, with no reasonable prospect of future viability. The third category of lines falls between
these two extremes. They are lines that
are not sufficiently viable today to attract a new operator but which could be
viable in the future. It is the third
category of lines that the Rails to Trails Act was intended to address.
As part of the
initiatives that affected the use of abandoned railway lines the Inter Modal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 known as “ISTEA” provided funding
for enhancements for bicycling and pedestrian facilities including rail
trails. ISTEA has since been replaced by
TEA 21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
One of the requirements to qualify for federal funding is that sixteen
factors be considered in developing a transportation plan. One of these is the :
“Preservation of rights-of-way for construction of future transportation projects, including identification of unused rights-of-way that may be needed for future transportation corridors and identification of those corridors for which action is needed to prevent destruction or loss.”
In the decade
from 1986 to 1996 there were 232 requests for trails filed with the Board
involving approximately 5,800 miles or railway corridor. The Board granted 172 of those requests,
involving approximately 4,500 miles of railway corridor. Approximately 3,100 miles of trails
involving 62,000 pieces of private property were formalized by 1996. A total of $240 million of Federal funding
was granted to convert the lands to trails.
The trail
requests that were not granted did not meet the standard for trail use or there
may have been other circumstances involved.
If there were other public interests or parties seeking to use the rail
corridor for actual rail service the trails request would not have been
considered.
In 1996 the
Act was reviewed by Congress at a series of hearings to determine whether or
not it was still effective and achieving its original purposes. Submissions made to Congress at the time
suggested that the Act should be amended to ensure that the process to revert
back to railroad use was made as easy as possible. It was noted at the hearings that the reversion back to a
railroad use was required to undergo a full environmental assessment
process. This was proving to be very
difficult, time consuming and expensive.
It was suggested at the hearings that if the intention of the Act was to
preserve the corridors for railroad use then there should be some recognition
of a degree of existing rights for the corridors to be used for those
purposes.
During the
Congressional Hearings it was noted that there is significant potential in
abandoned railroad corridors for other forms of transportation, other than
walking or bicycling, such as light rail or special purpose bus routes. It is worth noting that it was mentioned in
the Hearings that the trails are being preserved for a time “when oil runs
out”.
Potential use by urban transit and
commuter rail systems is significant
The American
Public Transit Association represents, in addition to many other public transit
systems, 14 commuter rail systems located in major urban areas of the United
States. These commuter rail systems
carry over 352,000,000 people a year using 6,400 miles of railroad right of
way. The typical commuter railroad
system operates over rights of way that are part of the general freight
railroad system.
However none
of the 14 American systems operates in quite the same way. Some systems own the vast majority of the
rights of way that they operate over; other systems rely on agreements with
freight railway companies or AMTRAK in order to use the right of way. The key similarity in both cases is that the
existing railroad right of way is used; that is, a commuter railroad is not
attempting to create railroad right of way when none currently exists. This is the key feature that makes commuter
railroads very cost effective when starting a new system.
At the
hearings in 1996, testimony was given by the APTA that future use of railroad
rights of way by commuter rail systems was a key and significant potential
means of providing for improved mobility in American cities. The example used was the acquisition by the
Dallas Area Rapid Transit system of over 150 miles of rail corridors in the
Dallas area. Because DART does not plan
to use these corridors for passenger service for several years, rail banking
the corridors for trail use is the ideal interim solution.
There
is a direct relevance to the Canadian context
Urban
transportation needs in the United States and Canada are essentially
identical. While the method of
protection, the history of railway corridor ownership and the process of
abandonment may differ significantly, the intent and effect of the American
experience seems relevant to the Canadian context.
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The central
question to be answered by this paper is:
Is it important to conserve existing
rail corridors for possible future use as commuter rail lines?
In order to
address this question we can summarize our findings as follows:
1. The largest urban centres in Canada are projected to grow
rapidly and result in a proportionally greater growth of suburban areas. In these cities the preservation of existing
rail corridors is critical, because growing traffic congestion and changes in
urban structures are creating conditions supportive of commuter rail.
2. There are a large number of medium-size cities in Canada
that have not been examined as part of this study and are growing rapidly as
well – these cities may represent major opportunities, especially those that
are satellite cities near the largest urban centres.
3. Any rail corridor represents an opportunity for alternative
transportation uses.
4. In terms of priority, the most important corridors are those
that extend current regional rail routes further into the urban hinterland.
5. Of equal significance are corridors within urban areas that
may link existing or growing high density nodes (such as the Pickering Airport
or Dorval); and corridors that run “against the grain” of other routes, thus
offering the potential for connections between routes or routes serving
peripheral centres.
6. Of lesser significance are a number of corridors that do not
serve existing or future growth centres, although portions of such corridors
may have the potential for use as non-rail related transportation or
infrastructure corridors.
7. Four of the cities included in this analysis have undertaken
some study of the potential for future regional rail/commuter use of existing
corridors, and the other two, Winnipeg and Halifax, are in the process of this
work. The analysis done to date
identifies specific rail corridors for urban transportation use in the context
of the needs of the community and the anticipated future growth patterns. Several initiatives in the six cities have
suggested alternate uses for railway corridors.
8. The railway corridors in urban areas may offer unique
opportunities to serve as transportation routes for a variety of transport
modes. These corridors are difficult if
not impossible to replace or replicate because of the cost, economic and social
disruption and political reality.
9.
In some locations
significant parcels of land exist within rail corridors that are in excess of
right-of-way requirements. These
locations may offer the potential for station locations or train storage
facilities and should be included in any consideration of potential regional
rail use.
10. It would be in the public interest to ensure that all rail
corridors proposed for abandonment in urban areas or potentially serving urban
areas are retained in Federal ownership against the time when Provincial or
local governments may request their use for transportation purposes.
11. Interim uses of such rail corridors should be permitted
provided they would not pose an obstacle to the reconversion of the corridor to
transportation use.
To review, we are
very likely, over the next twenty years, to experience:
§
levels of travel that will cause significantly more severe
traffic congestion;
§
the continued focus of growth at suburban and ex-urban nodes
– edge cities and satellite cities;
§
a consequent demand for expanded commuter rail networks as
an alternative to auto travel among these areas and from these areas to city
cores.
The creation
of new transportation corridors that provide relatively direct routes within
urban areas will be very difficult, for a number of reasons. Land purchases are often politically
difficult and costs inordinately high.
By definition, the lands that would be most suitable as corridors for
commuter rail service – areas of high density – are extremely valuable and
therefore expensive. As cities expand
and new neighbourhoods become established, the ability of a local authority to
“bull-doze” a new road or transit route disappears and costs increase.
An estimate of
the cost of acquiring similar corridors has been made, only for purposes of an
understanding of the order of magnitude.
The model used assumed acquisition of land for transportation purposes
in the hypothetical context of the creation of a new corridor, assuming that no
rail corridor existed. Based on recent
surveys of the costs of serviced industrial land, which would likely be the
only form of land use that could be converted to a new corridor, the cost of
acquiring the land to create all the corridors, Priority, High Potential and
Low Potential as shown on Figures 2 through 7 would be approximately $3.6
B. Broken down by municipality the
costs are as follows:
Halifax - $21M
Montreal - $770M
Toronto - $1,500
M
Winnipeg - $280M
Calgary $325M
Vancouver - $690M
Total – $3.6B
Current public
attitudes that preclude the establishment of new transportation corridors in
urban areas also push for better and more efficient transportation
systems. While few Canadians would
agree with the statement “new transportation corridors should be built through
urban neighbourhoods”, few would also likely agree with the statement “we don’t
need any more ways to travel between cities – our current system is good
enough”. In Canada’s largest urban
centers, the need for transportation alternatives to the highway network is
becoming increasingly acute.
Use of
corridors for non-rail transportation purposes has already been demonstrated in
several Canadian cities. For
example the Region of Sudbury has converted former rail corridors to major
arterial roads serving the downtown.
The Region of Ottawa-Carleton converted a former railway right-of-way to
serve as part of the extensive transitway system.
As a
consequence of increasing traffic congestion and the difficulty of creating new
transportation corridors, the availability of existing rail corridors for
transportation purposes may offer a much more significant benefit than in the
past. Rail corridors may, in fact,
offer the most feasible opportunity to provide additional access to downtown
areas. It would be short sighted to
allow them to be abandoned for public use without extensive review and
discussion on a corridor-by-corridor basis.
On the basis if these
findings we have concluded that the answer to the question as posed is
unequivocally ‘yes’. We have also found
that there are many other transportation-related purposes to which an abandoned
rail corridor may be put. The provision of adequate transportation facilities
does not involve just one mode of transportation. Walking, bicycling, public transit, automobile facilities, and a
variety of rail-related transit facilities are all needed in varying degrees in
different locations to provide the transportation network required to meet
demand both today and in the future. As
one of the most significant costs in developing new transportation facilities
is the creation of a corridor on which to provide the facility, railway
corridors represent a very significant potential asset.
The Federal Interest
The question has been posed as to what
Federal interest would be served by becoming involved in urban transportation
issues. Perhaps it is more instructive
to ask if the current abandonment provisions and processes are serving the
Federal interest. There are three
reasons why the Federal interest may not be served by the current legislation.
Rail corridors
are unique resources in our cities - Nearly four out of five Canadians now live
in cities with more than half of Canada’s population living within potential
commuter rail distance of our three largest centres. Losing potential future regional rail corridors or urban transit
corridors will reduce the ability of our cities to function with an acceptable
quality of life. In some cases rail
corridors are not realistically able to be recreated as the social and political
costs are too high. In these cases the
corridors should be treated with the same degree of significance as a unique
environmentally sensitive area, as they are irreplaceable and essential to the
functioning of the urban system.
The success of the
local transportation network is important to the national system - Federal
interests in air, water and rail transportation are potentially affected if the
air, water and rail terminals in our cities cannot be adequately accessed. The national transportation network is
dependent on all aspects of the system functioning well as part of integrated
system.
To some degree
our cities compete on a global scale - The increasing globalization of the
world economy has been well documented.
In this world market, Canada’s city-regions are the locations where
knowledge, labour, and capital come together to compete with other cities
around the world for increasingly footloose business and investment. An efficient transportation network is
essential to the ability of Canadian cities to remain competitive on the world
scene. In a knowledge-based economy,
where the ability to attract skilled labour is similarly critical, the
preservation of a high quality of life in our urban centers is equally
important.
It is worth
noting that the majority of western nations, including the United States and
Britain, provide direct financial support to local governments through a
variety of funding regimes, many or which are premised on enabling local
governments to achieve federal objectives.
The White Paper on the Future of Transport recently released by the
British Government, proposes to devolve some of the responsibility for
transportation planning to local government structures, and at the same time
provide new authority at the local level to levy a variety of user fees to fund
transportation infrastructure. In the
United States similar programs establish objectives related to air quality and
fund local transportation improvements conditional upon achieving specific
benchmarks.
The Federal
role can be limited to ensuring opportunities are not lost
The Federal
interest could be limited to that of ensuring that the corridors remain
available for transportation purposes, thus enabling the Provincial and local
interest to function in the most effective manner.
