Nick Mulder, former federal deputy minister of transport, suggests shippers and railways should sort out service issues and disputes amongst themselves.
Often, when there is a focus on one major goal, there is a danger that other important goals pay the price.
For example, some companies in the transportation sector have tended to stress market share at the expense of quality.
One can make the case that Canada’s railways made major gains in efficiency over the past two decades at the expense of service. This led to a major review by a federal panel concerning whether there is a need to make legislative changes and force the railways to improve their service.
Read Also
August rain welcome, but offered limited relief
Increased precipitation in August aids farmers prior to harvest in southern prairies of Canada.
The three-person panel was appointed last fall and will release an interim report in September, with the final version to be issued at the end of 2010. To date, the panel has received about 150 submissions from shippers, industry associations, ports, railways and provincial governments.
Views and recommendations among those submissions vary widely. Many shippers have documented cases of poor service and have asked for changes to force the railways to employ a more systematic performance measurement system, detailed service level agreements and penalties in cases of poor performance.
Railways, while admitting some culpability, are making the case that overall service levels are very good.
According to them, no legislative or regulatory changes are needed since many steps are underway to make more improvements especially at, as CN calls it, “the first and last miles”, when rail cars are slotted, picked up and delivered at the destination.
In my opinion, three issues are clear. First, the mere fact that the government has undertaken the review has forced the railways to pay much more attention to legitimate shipper complaints than previously.
Striving for efficiency, especially between major railway terminals, may be worthwhile but other aspects of door to door service are critical as well. With this review, the railways have largely gotten the message and are being more proactive.
Second, there is a need for better and more regularized information and communication between shippers and railways concerning basic service issues such as when cars are needed and how many, when will they arrive, be loaded or unloaded.
Third, rail freight service performance has to be measured over time by an independent entity.
Ample data is publicly available about the railways’ financial and productivity performance. Why not for service?
Airlines report delays in arrivals and departures, turnaround times; railways should do more of this as well.
The question of whether all this needs to or will be legislated is another matter. The federal government doesn’t see this topic as a major legislative priority, in part because the railways have gotten the message to fix the problems and are responding.
There is also little appetite and money for setting up new regulatory bureaucracies.
Still, shippers have a strong case for necessary changes. They are not at all sure the railways will deliver on their promises.
This uncertainty begs the question: why can’t the shippers and railways sort much of this out amongst themselves, particularly in terms of better service agreements, information and communication, and ongoing performance tracking?
Does Ottawa need to be involved? And if so, involved for all aspects or more specifically for regular performance measuring across the system and by major region and commodity groups?
These are questions the panel and officials within Transport Canada are surely considering as they consult industry stakeholders and finalize their report to Parliament.
