Rail service cost-effective, makes sense
I would like to address this to Warren Chapman who wrote the above letter to the editor in your April 11 edition.
Most of Mr. Chapman’s letter makes comments that completely miss the value of the rail corridor.
First of all buses are needed to complement the train.
Mr. Chapman’s accusation re: biased people being paid to push this idea. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the people recommending this rail service are informed, intelligent and unpaid proponents of a revitalized rail service on Vancouver Island.
Sky Train is not a comparison. No one ever claimed our Island Rail would be anything like Sky Train.
Service between Langford and Victoria would be often but relative to the requirements of the area and absolutely a lot more than two trains a day.
As for service on the rest of the corridor there are sections which would have multi trains a day and areas of two or three. Each area would received service according to its needs.
Yes most of the area is single tracked, but there are sidings and passing tracks still in existence and right-of-way to accommodate increasing the trackage as needed.
Suggesting adding a fleet of buses to the extent mentioned would in fact cost as much or more than the rail refurbishment.
Not to mention more asphalt required to handle the increased large vehicles which would just keep adding cost to highway upgrades. Changes to the Malahat, I think not.
As for highway closures, two-car trains are only a beginning. Size of trains, frequency of service is an incremental approach. This is not an all at once proposal it’s a start practically approach and grow as required.
This rail corridor would also have revenue sources, freight service at night and tourist trains in a number of areas, that would put revenue into the mix. This would mean the subsidy required by ALL public passenger systems, just like Vancouver, would be lessened.
The one sad part of this whole thing is the short sightedness of our governing bodies to do this 10 to 15 years ago. Costs would have been less and we would now have an efficient rail service.
Last but not least! If the corridor is not refurbished and is abandoned it would cease to exist for any use including biking/hiking trail.
Please biking/hiking people don’t be so narrow minded as to think your small group should be the only user of the corridor. Everyone and I mean everyone deserves to be served by this rail corridor which would include extending the already existing trail network to cover the whole corridor.
Jack Peake
Duncan