Why? Ottawa pays (through VIA) for the operation of VIA’s network, but all the routes which have disappeared since 1990 (Gaspé, Senneterre-Cochrane, Pukatawagan-Lynn Lake, Vancouver Island) have been lost due to the reapective provincial premiers’ refusal to fund the necessary infrastructure to sustain passenger service. To the best of my knowledge, it was no different with the Albertan givernment of the day, which refuses to pay more than a measly $1 million to fix the dangerous level crossings along the Edmonton-Calgary route (presumably less than what the federal government paid annually for maintaining the service) and that’s how it was lost in 1986 (?), at a time where routes were revived across the country (e.g., Moncton-Edmundston, Toronto-Havelock, Jasper-Vancouver).
I’m certain that Calgary-Edmonton would have survived the 1990 cuts as a “Corridor” service if the Albertan government had been willing to save the train in the mid 1980s by paying for upgrading its infrastructure…
I don't disagree, but I think one ought to look at that history a bit more dispassionately and realize that the entire political spectrum and the majority of public opinion across all levels accepted that decision. And really, the needle of public opinion towards investing in rail transportation (especially at the provincial level) didn't start moving until well into the new millenium.
If you look at how Ontario struggled with the premise of shifting the (much shorter) Barrie and Stouffville commuter lines from VIA to GO in that same era.... and its decision to not do likewise with the Havelock service ..... or the ACR service, for that matter.....the role of provinces in anything other than the shortest commuter transit was just not thought of in the 1980s and even 1990s. Perhaps the ONR investment in TEE trains set a precedent, but that was all about northern development and resisted as a model for provincial support of rail service generally.
It's certainly a sad story in hindsight...... if you look at what it would have cost to grade-crossing-protect the Calgary Edmonton line, and perhaps do incremental signalling and track upkeep over the years....as a proportion of all the money that has been invested in air terminals, runways, and highways between those two cities.... the rail infra cost would be lost in the rounding. Even with an investment in LRC trains commensurate with the O-Q corridor, and a maintenance base... it might have been affordable. So a lamentable case of opportunity not realised.
But at the same time..... can we say that building that railway would have created a stimulus to development, or acted as a driver to economic prosperity for the province, over what it realised without rail service ? And one has to realise that the early 80's were recession years in Alberta... just about everyone in the oil fields was trying to sell their RVs and camps. Money was tight.
If it came down to a choice of grade protecting Alberta crossings versus funding something else, the decision was likely the right one. (Build a rail line by not hiring Wayne Gretzky and saving his salary costs? Alberta came out ahead, for sure)
Anyways, we have to play the ball where it lies, and we can't change the past. But the blame game doesn't make today's business case any better. Things are what they are.
- Paul
PS - a neighbour worked on the early steps when Ontario first realised it needed to have a policy and regulatory framework for branch line and small railways. I am told It was a green field, no one outside of GO and ONR had railway knowledge, and it was hard to say with certainty what would be needed. The main point is, it happened not so many years ago. The idea of railroads being a provincial matter is still a new one in this country.
