Transport
2000 Manitoba
Transport
2000 Canada [Alberta Branch]
Transport
2000 BC
Submission to
the Standing Committee on
Transportation
of the House of Commons
for the hearings
on
Wednesday March
18, 1998
by
J. J. Bakker
Vice-President West.
Transport Action Canada
Transport Action Canada
J. J. Bakker B.Sc.,
D.I.C., M.S.C.E.
Vice President West, Transport Action Canada
Professor Emeritus, Civil
Engineering, University
of Alberta.
Eagle Bay, BC
The Chair and Members of the Standing Committee on Transport
of the House of Commons
March 14, 1998
This submission is on behalf of the western Transport Action
organisations.
Transport Action Canada has several provincial affiliates, which
are incorporated under the respective provincial society acts.
Each provincial organisation is represented on the board of
directors of the federal Transport Action Canada.
The emphasis of the western organisation may differ here and
there slightly from the national or other regional organisations,
the common objective is to see better public transportation in
Canada.
I hope you will find useful proposals and ideas in this
submission and that it will help the committee in its report to
the Minister.
I regret that I could not provide a French version of this
submission.
Respectfully submitted,
J. J. Bakker
Vice - President West
Executive
Summary
Submission prepared by J. J. Bakker,
Vice-President West for
Transport Action Manitoba,
Transport Action Canada [Alberta Branch] and Transport Action BC
In this submission we first want to point out the need for
co-ordination between modes. To accomplish that we consider that
a position of Co-ordinator of Public Transport should be created
within the Ministry of Transport. This co-ordinator should also
look at common terminals and better links to and from airports.
The challenge for this co-ordinator will be to make all providers
of public transport realise that they are competing with the car
and not with each other. The thinking has to become one of
interconnecting networks rather than competing lines.
The challenge from the Minister of Transport is to find
innovative ways to develop passenger rail services in Canada.
This appears for the first time to put an end to the incremental
destruction of VIA. We see the problem as a need for increased
revenues, reduced unit costs and stable funding. We also see a
relation to emission reduction and a need to transfer more truck
traffic to rail. Stable funding would best be obtained with an
environmental levy (initially 2 cents per litre) on the gasoline
tax, split between VIA, Urban Transit and the Environment.
The report goes into detail as to what we see as the
deficiencies in the present system. Increased revenue would have
to come from increased service and carrying express freight (as
Amtrak does). We see possibilities of partnerships with the
freight railways, by which freight is carried in return for free
access to tracks and an engineer.
Unit Costs can be reduced with new equipment. The most
promising savings can be made in the corridor by using Passenger
Diesel Multiple Units (PDMU). We give requirements like
distributed power, tilting, being able to move between coupled
units and being able couple to Freight Diesel Multiple Units
(FDMU). The latter would carry trucks, truck trailers or
containers. The DMU's could also be used on remote services. The
bids for DMU's should examine the alternatives of purchase, lease
or lease-purchase including lifetime maintenance. The units
should be designed for productivity and efficiency rather than
appearance.
We favour that VIA becomes a frugal Commercial Crown
Corporation. The VIA Rail Act should give VIA real powers
regarding rail access, and we see a need for an arbitration
mechanism to settle disputes. Similar access requirements are
needed for commuter trains and cruise trains.
Table of
Contents.
Executive Summary
Introduction.
The Co-ordination and Cooperation
between Modes
The Role of Passenger Trains
- Passenger Rail Transportation
The Threat of Rail Closures
The Eastern Region
The Quebec City to Windsor Corridor
The Alberta Corridor
The Western Region
Tourist Services or Cruise Trains.
Remote Services
Other Passenger Rail Services and
Commuter Rail.
Are there Solutions?
Conclusion and Recommendations
Introduction
Our mission statement is: Transport Action Canada represents
the interests of public transportation by promoting socially,
environmentally and economically sustainable policies, programs
services and actions.
We welcome the opportunity to give input into the discussion
about Passenger Rail Transportation in Canada. As consumer
organisations concerned about public transport we see this as
first sign for a long time that passenger rail transport will be
given a role. Unfortunately and notwithstanding our mission
statement, our organisation is often as a rail fan group. On the
contrary we want see good public transport, and as the rest of
the western world is showing rail transport is a part of the
total system.
In this submission we first want to point out the need for
co-ordination between modes. To accomplish that we consider that
a position of Co-ordinator of Public Transport should be created
within the Ministry of Transport. This co-ordinator should also
look at common terminals and better links to and from airports.
The challenge for this co-ordinator will be to make all providers
of public transport realise that they are competing with the car
and not with each other. The thinking has to become one of
interconnecting networks rather than competing lines.
The challenge from the Minister of Transport is to find
innovative ways to develop passenger rail services in Canada.
This appears for the first time to put an end to the incremental
destruction of VIA. We see the problem as a need for increased
revenues, reduced unit costs and stable funding. We also see a
relation to emission reduction and a need to transfer more truck
traffic to rail. Stable funding would best be obtained with a
dedicated environmental levy (initially 2 cents per litre) on the
gasoline tax, split between VIA, Urban Transit and the
Environment. The money generated for VIA should be for capital
investment. We consider sustaining services to remote areas a
separate financial transaction.
This submission discusses in some detail by region, what the
approximate service requirements could be. Obviously these are
objectives that cannot be implemented overnight, but they give an
idea of the size of the problem and the size of orders for new
equipment needed. Increased revenue would have to come from
increased service and carrying express freight (as Amtrak does).
We see possibilities of partnerships with the freight railways,
by which freight is carried in return for free access to tracks
and an engineer.
Unit Costs can be reduced with new equipment. The most
promising savings can be made in the corridor by using Passenger
Diesel Multiple Units (PDMU). We give requirements like
distributed power, tilting, being able to move between coupled
units and being able couple to Freight Diesel Multiple Units
(FDMU). The latter would carry trucks, truck trailers or
containers. The DMU's could also be used on remote services. The
bids for DMU's should examine the alternatives of purchase, lease
or lease-purchase including lifetime maintenance. The units
should be designed for productivity and efficiency rather than
appearance. We also consider that new equipment should be based
on requirements with an invitation to manufacturers as to how
close their products can match them; rather than that new
equipment becomes manufacturer driven process for a single
product that one manufacturer happens to have.
We favour that VIA becomes a frugal Commercial Crown
Corporation. The VIA Rail Act should give VIA real powers
regarding rail access, and we see a need for an arbitration
mechanism to settle disputes. Similar access requirements are
needed for commuter trains and cruise trains.
WE welcome the opportunity to be able to appear before the
House of Commons Transport Committee and to explain our views
further.
The Co-ordination and
Cooperation between Modes
The factor that matters most is planning and co-ordination.
This is the area where the Royal Commission on Passenger
Transportation failed completely. The Royal Commission
concentrated only on costs and economics, but failed to see the
value of co-ordination.
The simple idea is that to get from here to there, it is rare
that only one form of transport is used. When travelling by
plane, one has to get to and from the airport. If one travels by
train, one has to get to the station. If one travels one has to
get to the bus station for express buses or the nearest agency
stop along a route. Unfortunately none connect with each other.
In fact connections are poor even within one organisation.
Need Co-ordinating Agency
The real challenge is to create a co-ordinating agency to get
various forms of passenger transport to work together and connect
with each other. The competition is the car and not each
other. Some solutions can be low cost.
A co-ordinating agency should try to get a public transport
system in place with common terminals, timed connections and
through ticketing. The agency should be involved with airports
and airlines, VIA, GO Transit, WestCoast Express,
BC Rail, Amtrak, Greyhound and other Bus Lines, even limousine
and transit services. Because some jurisdictions are federal and
some provincial or even municipal, regional agencies would also
be needed. Since part of the Minister's challenge is that there
is no budget, co-ordination will initially have to be voluntary.
A first step would be to appoint within the Department of
Transport a co-ordinator of Public Transport. Through meetings
with the various players this person can then develop a plan for
co-ordination. Provincial Governments should be asked to
designate a person responsible for co-ordination in each
province, so that jurisdiction can be respected. In this process
there is a role for advisory councils with representatives of
consumer associations like Transport Action and business.
The biggest challenge however is to make all providers of
public transport realise that they are competing with the car and
not with each other. The thinking has to become one of
interconnecting networks rather than competing lines.
Common Terminals for Surface
Transportation
In Canada there are not many examples of common passenger
terminals. The best examples are in Vancouver, Banff, Jasper and
Quebec City. Unfortunately steps are now being taken to eliminate
Levis which is another example.
However there are many locations where a common terminal could
be created. For example in Ottawa the bus station could be
relocated to the VIA Station (better access to the
Transitway); in Toronto the Union Station could have a new deck
placed above the railway tracks and the bus station could then be
located on top of it (like was done at the Central Station in The
Hague, Netherlands). Other possibilities exist in Calgary (move
railway station west to opposite the Greyhound Bus Station, or
Winnipeg.
To accomplish these common terminals is one of the challenges
facing a co-ordinator. However the solution should be sought in
partnerships, preferably with office developments. Winnipeg is a
good example.
The big advantage of a common terminal is, that it becomes a
focus for passenger transportation. The various modes can then
feed each other passengers. It will also make it attractive for
public transit to serve such a terminal. It is a good location
for a travel agent and a connection to the airport. It is like a
shopping centre, the centre that has two department stores
performs better and provide a greater choice to customers.
The Need for Links to and from
Airports
Most airports are poorly served by public transport. The
result is, one has to either rent a car, use a taxi or try and
find a limousine. An airport bus, if it exists, usually serves a
few hotels downtown and is disconnected from any other form of
public transport (connections or ticketing).
There are a number of airports that lend themselves to be
linked with rail transport, others can only be served by the bus
companies.
First however it should be noted that abroad rail access is
being used as a substitute for feeder air services. The small
planes used to serve regional towns near a major airport help in
causing airport congestion. A small plane requires as much time
and space on the runways as a big plane going overseas or
transcontinental. It promotes the case of energy conservation and
the best use of limited resources.
Like in Europe there is also the potential for Freight Diesel
Multiple Units (FMDU) service between airports or with major
cities.
European Airports with Passenger Train
Service
City |
Airport |
Frequency of Service |
Kind of Service |
Amsterdam |
Schiphol |
4 times an hour |
Local, IC, EC, Thalys. |
Barcelona |
El Prat |
2 times an hour |
Local |
Berlin |
Schonefield |
3 times an hour |
Commuter |
Birmingham |
International |
6 times an hour |
IC, Local |
Brussels |
National |
3 times an hour |
Local |
Düsseldorf |
Düsseldorf |
3 times an hour |
Local |
Frankfurt a.M. |
Frankfurt/Main |
4 times an hour |
IC, EC, Local |
Geneva |
Cointrin |
6 times an hour |
IC, Local |
London |
Gatwick |
4 times an hour |
Express |
London |
Heathrow |
4 times an hour |
Express, also Underground |
London |
Stansted |
2 times an hour |
Express |
Manchester |
Manchester |
6 times per hour |
Local |
München |
Strauss |
3 times an hour |
Commuter |
Newcastle |
Newcastle |
6 times an hour |
Light Rail |
Paris |
Charles de Gaulle |
4 to 8 times an hour |
Regional, High Speed |
Paris |
Orly |
4 times an hour |
Regional |
Rome |
Leonardo da Vinci |
3 times an hour |
Local |
Stuttgart |
Echterdingen |
2 to 4 times per hour |
Local |
Zurich |
Kloten |
5 times an hour |
Local, IC. |
IC = Inter-City Train, EC = International Intercity Train,
Local = Train from Central Stn to Airport.
American Airports with Passenger Train
Service
City |
Airport |
Frequency of Service |
Kind of Service |
Washington DC |
National |
Frequent |
Metro |
New York Region |
Newark |
4 times per hour |
Monorail |
New York |
Kennedy |
Frequent |
LRT (planning stage) |
Baltimore |
Wash/Baltimore |
Regular |
LRT Baltimore |
Cleveland |
Cleveland |
6 times per hour |
Rail Transit (Red Line) |
St. Louis |
St. Louis |
6 times per hour |
LRT |
Philadelphia |
Philadelphia |
2 times per hour |
Commuter Train |
San Francisco |
San Francisco |
Frequent |
Bay Area Rapid Transit
(planned) |
Seattle |
Seattle/Tacoma |
6 times an hour |
Planned LRT |
The opportunities in Canada are at Montreal (Dorval), Toronto
(Pearson Airport) and Ottawa. However frequent service would be
required which could be a combination of VIA and
Commuter Rail services. In Ottawa it could be a Diesel Light Rail
service.
There is great potential for both fare integration and
schedule co-ordination between agencies.
The Role of Passenger Trains
In Canada Passenger Train service is provided by VIA.
VIA was established under the Administration Act
and is not a crown corporation. As a result VIA is
not independent, cannot make commercial decisions and is totally
under the control of government administrators. There is no
clarity what the purpose of VIA really is.
Since the Royal Commission on Passenger Transportation the
suspicion has been that VIA was there in order to
wind down and eliminate all passenger rail transportation in
Canada on an incremental basis.
In a presentation to the House of Commons Transport Committee,
the Minister Hon. David Collenette P.C., MP challenged the
committee to find innovative ways to develop passenger rail
services in Canada. Citing VIA's success in
maintaining operations despite reduced subsidies, the Minister
asked the committee to find new ways to develop rail service
within the $ 170 million annual subsidy. Earlier in Calgary the
Minister called on industry, government and consumers to shape a
new framework for a Canadian transportation strategy, with a
revitalised passenger rail service as one of the key elements.
This challenge by the minister appears for the first time to
put an end to the incremental destruction of VIA.
We are glad to be able to join in the challenge, however the
lack of funding will still cloud the future of passenger rail.
There is still the believe that with the distortion in the market
when it comes to other forms of transport, that somehow in rail
passenger transportation the market will solve everything. It has
not done so in any other country.
A second challenge is the undertakings by the Canadian
Government in Kyoto as to the reduction of emissions.
The third challenge is how to reduce truck emissions and
transfer truck traffic over to rail.
As we will show: All three challenges are linked.
Passenger Rail Transportation
The advantage of passenger rail transportation is that more
space per passenger can be provided, plus the ability to move
around to a dining or observation car. Trains cater to a
different market, particularly for longer trips. Both aeroplanes
and buses have very limited space per passenger available. Trains
provide an alternative to people who do not want to drive or fly.
Trains however should allow people to use their time profitable.
In other words seats should be equipped with a table and a power
outlet for laptop computers. TV programs should be available, as
they do on Spanish long-distance trains.
Although buses provide an alternative, there are a number of
differences that make trains more attractive. One is for example
that no meal stops are required. Also trains can provide sleeping
accommodation for overnight trips.
The Royal Commission claimed that train trips are only
attractive for journeys of about 3 hours or less. For overnight
trips that would become 16 hours or so. It ignores the size of
Canada and the fact that the alternative of the car takes longer,
since overnight stops are required. In Europe there are numerous
long daytime and overnight trips (8 to 12 hours) available and
used.
When Mr. Pépin in 1981 converted the Super-Continental into a
number of daytime trains on the prairies
(Winnipeg-Regina-Saskatoon and Saskatoon-Edmonton) most of the
passengers left the train as a travel alternative. The longer
distances must involve sleeping cars if overnight.
A rough rule of thumb is that the interval between two trains
should be equal to the travel time. So cities two hours apart
should have a train every 2 hours. In this regard intermediate
cities have to be considered, such as Kingston, London, and Trois
Rivières
Typical Long Distance Train Travel Times
are:
Route Segment |
Travel Time |
Service Now |
Service Should Be |
Halifax - Montreal |
19 hours |
1 train per day |
1 train per day |
Halifax - Moncton |
5 hours |
1 train per day |
3 trains daily |
Moncton - Montreal |
14 hours |
1 train per day |
2 trains per day |
Toronto - Chicago |
12 hours |
1 train per day |
2 trains per day |
Toronto - North Bay |
4 hours 30 minutes |
1 train per day |
3 or 4 trains per day |
Toronto - Sudbury |
6 hours (6 hr. 30 min. via
North Bay) |
1 train per day |
3 trains per day |
Ottawa - Sudbury |
was 7 hours 30 minutes |
none |
1 or 2 trains per day |
Toronto - Winnipeg |
30 hours, |
3 trains per week |
1 train per day |
Winnipeg - Saskatoon |
8 hours, |
3 trains per week |
2 trains per day |
Winnipeg - Edmonton |
16 hours, |
3 trains per week |
2 trains per day |
Edmonton - Vancouver |
23 hours |
3 trains per week |
1 train per day. |
Typical Corridor Times are:
Route Segment |
Travel Time |
Service Now |
Service Should Be |
Ottawa - Kingston |
1 hour 45 min. |
5 trains per day |
Every two hours |
Kingston - Toronto |
2 hours |
9 trains per day |
Every two hours* |
Montreal - Toronto |
4 hours express |
1 train per day |
2 or 3 trains per day |
Montreal - Toronto |
4 hours 45 min. |
5 trains per day |
Every two hours* |
Toronto -Brantford -London |
2 hours |
5 trains per day |
Every two hours |
London - Windsor |
1 hour 41 min. |
5 trains per day |
Every two hours |
Toronto-Kitchener-London |
3 hours |
2 trains per day |
Every two hours |
Toronto - Sarnia |
4 hours 15 min. |
2 trains per day |
Every four hours |
Toronto - Chicago |
11 hours |
1 train per day |
2 trains per day |
Toronto - Niagara Falls |
2 hours |
2 trains per day |
Every two hours |
Toronto - Buffalo. |
4 hours |
1 train per day |
Every four hours |
Quebec - Montreal |
3 hours |
4 trains per day |
Every two hours |
Montreal - Ottawa |
2 hours |
4 trains per day |
Every two hours |
Edmonton - Calgary is 3 hours (however passenger train service
was removed in 1986).
* Combined at Brockville, continue to Pearson Airport.
**could be less than 3 hours, if proper customs arrangements
existed
The Threat of Rail Closures
There are two threats facing Passenger Transportation.
- The closure of tracks that passenger trains operate on
now or of tracks that will divert traffic causing
congestion on which passenger trains operate now. Toronto
- Montreal is being overloaded because traffic that used
to travel between Montreal and Sudbury via Ottawa now is
diverted via Toronto. The result is more kilometres, more
pollution. Some decisions about closures were taken at a
time of economic downturn, and cause serious problems
when there is an economic upturn. There is a classic
example of this occurrence in the United States as a
result of the merger of United Pacific and Southern
Pacific.
- The abandonment of railways and rights of ways in urban
areas, such as Edmonton, Barrie/Orillia, Toronto, Levis,
Fredericton NB and Kentville NS.
There should be an immediate moratorium on these abandonments.
Abandonment means an irreplaceable loss for future commuter or
inter-city passenger services. For example in Edmonton it is now
extremely difficult to bring an inter-city line from Calgary (and
a service to the International Airport) together with the
east-west transcontinental rail services.
In a submission the Nault Task Force on the Privatisation of
CN (Fall 1994), it was proposed that a CN be split into CN
Infrastructure and CN Operations. The aim would be to establish a
National Rail infrastructure agency. Unfortunately the submission
was ignored.
A Track Infrastructure Agency on which licensed operating
railways would operate would promote competition by giving short
line operators access to two main railways. It would also
simplify the passenger rail access problem.
The Eastern Region
The Eastern Region used to be served with 2 daily overnight
trains, as far as Moncton. One route used the Atlantic line and
served Sherbrooke, Fredericton Junction, Saint John and Moncton.
The other followed the present route. With the CP abandoning the
Atlantic line only the CN alternative remains. Service is now 6
times a week.
In the eastern region there were also a number of local diesel
multiple unit trains, which served as feeders to the long
distance trains. Particularly the Sydney - Truro - Halifax
service was very successful and can still be reinstated. The
other local trains were Halifax - Moncton - Saint John, Halifax -
Yarmouth (here the track has gone) and Moncton - Edmundston.
The rebuilt long distance equipment is now Head End Powered
(HEP). This equipment should with good maintenance be useful for
a few more years. Equipment replacement is discussed later in
this submission.
The bus companies have not succeeded to replace abandoned
feeder or long distance services.
For the eastern region, the objectives
should be:
1. Keep the Ocean service, consider making it a daily train.
2. Keep the Gaspé service as is. (Rail closure is a threat
here).
3. Restore the Atlantic service.
4. Restore the Cape Breton Service using
Multiple Unit Diesel Cars.
5. Look into a Saint John - Halifax service using
Multiple Unit Diesel Cars.
Later in the submission the methods of making passenger rail
financially more attractive will be discussed.
The Quebec City to Windsor Corridor
In the corridor there is great opportunity for increased train
travel. The basis of making trains attractive will have to be
reliability (both in on time performance and of equipment) and
frequency. The corridor also has the greatest potential for
savings, provided the right new equipment is chosen.
At present trains are engine hauled but only have 3 or 4 cars.
Engine hauled equipment requires two crew members in the cab. The
power of the engines is excessive for the load and wasteful.
If multiple-unit trains were used, only one crew member is
required. The operating costs of Diesel Multiple Units are about
half those of regular trains. Multiple-Unit trains should be
broadly specified and include the following requirements:
- Distributed power using diesel engines (can later be
modified to electric power). Distributed power will give
better acceleration.
- Tilting capability, so curves can be taken at higher
speeds without discomfort to passengers.
- The ability to move from one unit to another when
coupled. This means a straight front, rather than
streamlining. Operationally costs are reduced when trains
have to lengthened or are combined. For example in the
corridor trains multiple units from Montreal and Ottawa
could be combined at Brockville or Kingston and continue
as one train to Toronto, with an appropriate train crew.
Because there are more trains running, there will not be
reduced employment.
- It should be possible to couple these Passenger Diesel
Multiple Unit trains (PDMU) to Freight Diesel Multiple
Unit trains (FDMU). The FDMU's can be used to move
trucks, truck trailers or containers. FDMU's are used
independently of passenger trains in Germany,
particularly to/from Frankfurt airport.
The initial new service should be a train every two hours for
the segments Quebec - Montreal, Montreal - Ottawa, Montreal -
Toronto and Ottawa - Toronto, Toronto - London - Windsor. The
trains from east of Toronto should go via the Union Station and
terminate at Pearson Airport (one reason why intermediate stops
are essential). Trains from West of Toronto should be guided past
Pearson Airport or continue on from Union Station to Pearson
Airport.
In addition to the regular two-hour train, there can be one to
three express trains between Montreal and Toronto.
Further additional service should be provided in the
Toronto-Kitchener-London and Toronto - Niagara - Buffalo
services. At least a midday train should be added.
Another aspect that should be explored is to segregate the
freight and passenger services between Montreal and Toronto. For
example CP and CN Freight trains could operate on the CP line and
passenger trains on the CN line. Such an arrangement should not
preclude express freight attached to passenger trains, (FDMU plus
PDMU). The capacity problem on the Montreal - Toronto line is
primary due to the diversion of transcontinental freight trains
from the Ottawa Valley. In fact CN is trying to close the CN line
immediately west of Ottawa. With the improvement in the economy,
this policy of eliminating vital links in a network is not in the
national interest.
It would of course be nice to have High Speed Trains in the
corridor. However the money is not available for this purpose. If
the money was available, the question has to be asked, is that
the best way of spending it. More and more European countries
have come to the conclusion that it is more economic to invest in
tilting trains and upgrade/grade separate track on an incremental
basis. In other words there is one life cycle of equipment before
High Speed Rail would become a reality. The incremental approach
will also permit market and attitude changes.
The Alberta Corridor
In 1986 the Alberta corridor was shut down, because of a
series of level crossing accidents. As well there was a rear end
collision south of Red Deer which involved fatalities.
Modifications of the rail line near Red Deer have removed the
tracks from downtown Red Deer.
Since it being a freight only line, there still have been
level crossing accidents, however they receive less publicity
since no passenger trains were involved.
There has been talk about high speed trains, tilting trains
and the like to operate between Calgary and Edmonton. However
this talk usually meant that high speed trains were proposed in
the Quebec - Windsor Corridor, and it was a convenient possible
future carrot, to keep the west quiet. Unless the level crossing
situation is improved by protecting all of them with signals, it
is unlikely that passenger trains at any speed will be resumed.
The market situation however has changed. Edmonton has closed
its Municipal Airport, and the International Airport is 15 or
more kilometres south of the city. The highway between Edmonton
and Calgary is a busy one and not that attractive to drive. At
present there are two bus services between the two cities.
Greyhound provides an hourly service, half of these are express,
the other half stop in Red Deer. The Red Arrow provides a more
luxury service three times per day.
The potential for a frequent rail service exists, but it does
require a level crossing protection study first. Again Diesel
Multiple Unit trains would be the solution.
There is a far greater potential for a Diesel Light Rail train
service between the Grandin LRT Station (Government Centre) and
the International Airport.
The Diesel Light Rail and Passenger DMU's are not incompatible
if operated separately, but cannot be coupled.
The Western Region
Passenger train services in Western Canada were decimated in
1990. Up to then there were two daily trains serving the west.
- The Canadian, from Montreal/Toronto -
Sudbury - Thunder Bay - Winnipeg - Regina - Calgary -
Banff - Kamloops - Vancouver.
- The Super-Continental, from Winnipeg -
Saskatoon - Edmonton - Jasper - Kamloops - Vancouver.
Prior to the 1981 cuts the Super Continental ran from
Toronto.
There was also a remote train from Capreol to Winnipeg over
the northern line.
After 1990 there has been a three times a week service over
the CN line. There was a promise by Blyth to provide tourist
trains on the southern line, however these train remained a
fiction of the imagination and an excuse to severe the service.
It should be noted that The
Canadian had the highest use of
trains of any in Canada in 1989!
The West was treated badly and the real problems were not
tackled. It had political repercussions, particularly for the
main parties.
Rather than even attempting to solve the real problem (in
other words reduce the costs), the government cut services.
The costs in Canada were too high, because of old equipment,
access charges to VIA and different labour
agreements. Since that time VIA has addressed some
of these cost issues. The old steam heated equipment was rebuilt
and Head End Power used (bilevel cars would have been better).
The labour agreements have been changed. VIA has no
control over access charges and is at the mercy of the
deregulated operating railways. Amtrak only has to pay avoidable
costs by law.
A comparison of 1989 operating results between The
Canadian and The Empire Builder
(Chicago-Seattle) showed the costs in Canada to be too high.
Train |
The Canadian |
Empire Builder |
Comment |
Equipment |
Steam heated |
Electrically heated |
Empire better |
|
1950 vintage |
New |
Empire better |
|
Single level |
Bi-Level |
Empire better |
Passengers |
639,000 |
413,000 |
Canadian better |
Passenger km |
621,899,000 |
519,000,000 |
Canadian better |
Train km |
3,680,000 |
3,024,000 |
Canadian better |
Pass km/Train km |
169 |
172 |
About the same |
Revenue Can$ |
$49,952,000 |
$35,261,000 |
Canadian better |
Rev./Train km (Can$) |
$14.72 |
$13.11 |
Canadian better |
Rev./Pass km (Can$) |
$0.08 |
$0.07 |
Canadian better |
Avoidable Cost (Can$) |
$98,782,000 |
$32,017,000 |
The problem |
Cost/Train km |
$26.85 |
$10.59 |
The problem |
However VIA did have the chance in 1983 to
obtain bi-level long distance cars, but started to redesign cars
and made them so expensive that approval of purchase became
impossible. However there is a lesson here. Very detailed
specifications make equipment very expensive. It is much better
to state broad requirements and ask industry to present what they
can supply. Separately there should be a price quotation.
For the West the objectives should be:
- Restoration of a daily Canadian Toronto -
Sudbury - Thunder Bay - Winnipeg - Calgary - Banff -
Kamloops - Vancouver service.
- Making the present service on the Northern line daily
between Winnipeg and Vancouver, serving Saskatoon,
Edmonton, Jasper and Kamloops.
- Look into restoration of higher speed trains between
Calgary and Edmonton, together with airport connections
at Leduc and Airdrie.
- Look into daily daytime services between Winnipeg -
Regina - Calgary and Winnipeg - Saskatoon - Edmonton.
(FDMU + PDMU)
- Look into linking the northern service with a Chicago
link. (Toronto - Sarnia - Chicago - Minneapolis -
Winnipeg).
- More closely integrate the marketing and customer
services with BC Rail and possibly Rocky Mountaineer
Cruise Trains
Tourist Services or Cruise Trains.
In the West Rocky Mountaineer operates a summer only cruise
train. This train is not accessible for passengers to or from any
of the communities along the line. The trains operate as follows:
Calgary - Banff - Kamloops |
next day: |
Kamloops - Banff - Calgary |
Jasper - Kamloops |
next day |
Kamloops - Jasper |
Vancouver - Kamloops |
next day |
Kamloops - Vancouver |
Service is three times per week, with all trains
"meeting" in Kamloops, where trains and passengers stay
overnight.
Trains are well used and provide a very good service to
tourists only.
Rocky Mountaineer has the same access charges problems with
the operating railways as VIA. Rocky Mountaineer
uses old VIA equipment which has to be steam
heated, if heating is required (not often the case in summer).
Rocky Mountaineer has bought about six bilevel observation cars.
Rocky Mountaineer has been able to buy about one car per year.
The Rocky Mountaineer train was instituted by VIA
and was marginally profitable. With the 1990 cuts, the service
was privatised.
Because the service is summer only personnel presumably has to
go on Unemployment Insurance during the winter or find other
temporary employment.
VIA provides some competition with Rocky
Mountaineer between Jasper and Vancouver at the present time. It
was prohibited by the government from providing daily service in
the summer in 1997.
There is a disincentive to VIA here, in that if
a line becomes profitable it will be privatised and VIA
personnel will lose their job. A different approach is needed, to
reduce the burden on the taxpayers and give VIA
personnel and management the incentive to be innovative.
However this does raise the question as to what VIA
should provide. Is the sporadic service now being provided a
passenger transportation service that should be co-ordinated with
other forms of transport? Or is VIA providing a
tourist service and other passengers are kind of tolerated when
there is space. In its statements VIA makes it
clear that in the Eastern Region and the Corridor, it is
providing passenger transportation. However in the west they cite
tourist potential.
In our view VIA should provide passenger
transportation everywhere, however if by adding cars it can
attract additional business it should do so. The additional
business however could be tourism, but also it could be express
freight.
Remote Services
The multiple units proposed for the corridor, also have
application in the remote services, particularly on the following
services:
- Edmonton - Jasper - Prince George
- Prince George - Prince Rupert
- Victoria - Courtenay (although here Light Rail Diesel may
be more appropriate).
- Montreal - Jonquiere
- Montreal - Senneterre
- Toronto - North Bay - Cochrane
- North Bay - Sudbury - White River
- Ottawa - North Bay - Sudbury as a connecting service.
- Another possibility is Winnipeg - Thompson.
The remote services will not be commercially viable. Again
additional revenue should be generated by moving express freight,
if any is available. However the operation of remote services
should be kept separate from the VIA accounts and
contributions to maintain remote services should not be counted
as a subsidy to VIA, but as a cost to retain remote
services.
Other Passenger Rail Services and
Commuter Rail.
There are in addition to VIA several other
passenger rail services.
BC Rail operates daily trains between North Vancouver and
Lillooet, with a three times a week continuation to Prince
George. In Prince George, after an overnight stay, there are
connections to Prince Rupert or Jasper. BC Rail passenger trains
are cross-subsidised by BC Rail freight services.
Amtrak provides a daily service between Vancouver and Seattle.
In fact it gives the only daily link to transcontinental service
from Vancouver to the east using the Empire Builder. Amtrak with VIA
provides a service between Toronto - Sarnia and Chicago, as well
as Toronto - Niagara Falls - Buffalo - New York. Amtrak provides
a service from Montreal to New York
Algoma Central provides a four times a week service between
Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst.
Commuter Services
In Canada there are rail commuting services operating out of
Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. These commuting services have
the same rail access charges problems with the operating railways
as VIA.
In Montreal the extension of the Deux-Montagnes line to Dorval
should be investigated as a possibility. The CP commuting line to
the west lacks good midday service. At present it is provided
with a few long trains, while it should be provided with more
frequent and shorter multiple unit diesel trains.
In Toronto there is an extensive GO Transit system, which now
is in danger because the Provincial Government has forgotten why
it was instituted in the first place. GO Transit on the Lakeshore
line came about because it was less costly than building another
freeway to accommodate peak hour traffic loads. GO Transit has
been downloaded to the greater city of Toronto. GO Transit should
also serve Pearson Airport.
In Vancouver the WestCoast Express operates five trains in the
peak hour peak direction only. There are no midday trains. A
companion service between Mission and New Westminster should be
investigated. There is at present little scope to serve Vancouver
International Airport with any rail line.
Are there
Solutions?
So far this submission has given background to the size of the
problem and maybe approaches to solutions. However the
fundamental problem can be reduced to increased revenues,
controlled expenditures and organisational structure.
Increase Revenue.
The option of increasing prices is showing to be
counterproductive. Use of trains is being restrained by now due
to comparatively high prices.
First revenue increase has to come from increased frequency of
service.
Second, revenue increase has to come from new sources such as
parcels, mail, Car-go-Rail, even containers or roadrailers.
Partnership deals with parcel carriers, the post office and the
operating railways would be needed. A partnership would be a
better approach than starting a separate organisation within VIA.
VIA in its submission does not mention
parcels, mail or other revenues. Yet Amtrak finds that its
transcontinental lines are dependent on it. The Empire Builder
has five express cars for example and that justifies daily
service. Amtrak had reduced service on the Empire Builder to
three times per week. It had to reverse that decision in 1997, so
as to gain back the parcel express and mail contracts. (see
Appendix 1).
Freight Partnership instead of Track
Access Charges?
At present freight trains operate on a random basis. When a
train is ready, a crew is found and the train departs to the next
division point. Freight trains do not operate on a schedule.
In contrast passenger trains do run on a schedule. Passengers
trains are (or should be) predictable as far as arrival and
departure is concerned. The following anecdote may illustrate
this.
In the days of Red, White and Blue fares of CN Passenger
services the author asked CN officials, why they could not keep
passenger trains on schedule. The answer was that there were many
stretches of single track, which made meets impossible to predict
and exact scheduling was not feasible. A year later the author
met with Swiss Railway officials and asked how come they were
able to keep their trains so punctual. The answer was that there
were many stretches of single track and therefore meets had to be
scheduled exactly and trains had to keep exactly on schedule. The
moral is, it depends on the culture of the railroad.
There is a great advantage to some shippers to have
predictability as to arrival and departure of their freight.
Scheduled freight would help. One aspect of this is the
"just in time" process. Most of this scheduled freight
now goes by truck. The operating railways have failed to attract
short haul truck trailers and containers. The mail movement is
another good example.
By combining express freight with passenger trains, the
operating railways can attract regular scheduled freight. When
discussing equipment, the method of how to do this can be
discussed further.
One alternative would be for VIA to start
attracting freight. The other way is for the operating railways
to do the freight marketing and then to run a combined train. VIA
could then as compensation either receive money, or free access
to the tracks with possibly the engineer. In the case of
receiving money, cost accountants get involved. It were the cost
accountants that destroyed passenger rail in the first place.
Receiving services in kind, keeps the cost accountants out of it.
Instead there is an allocation of responsibilities. The following
anecdote explains how.
The author was involved at one time in setting up a joint use
agreement between the Town Council of St. Albert and two School
Boards. In this agreement responsibilities and rules were
substituted for cost accounting and charging. The Town assumed
the responsibility to operate and maintain all the grounds
(schools and parks) as well as the arenas and swimming pools, The
School boards looked after the school buildings. During school
hours the schools had priority in use at no charge, after school
hours the Town's recreation department had access to all
facilities (including schools) at no charge. In this way the
accountants could not load charges onto another jurisdiction and
make their own books look good. Cross charging, although giving a
sense of purity about it, usually destroys programs. For example,
other communities because of cross charging had to close their
swimming pools. This agreement was started in 1965 and still
works today.
If there is not a partnership between freight and passenger
railways then other methods have to be found:
- To determine the basis of charging. Amtrak uses avoidable
costs. A VIA Rail Act should specify VIA's
rights. However there should be a companion act to
specify similar rights for Commuter operations and Cruise
Trains.
- A dispute resolution system should be set up to arbitrate
differences regarding traffic rights and priorities,
rental fees, performance payments, and local service
charges, especially where monopolies exist.
Equipment
The great value of one agency being responsible for the
national passenger rail services, is that it becomes easier to
standardise equipment and reduce maintenance costs. Equipment
should be modular with plug in components. There are two types of
equipment to deal with.
1. Short Haul InterCity Daytime
Services.
Earlier this submission outlined the requirements for the
corridor. However PDMU's should also be used on remote services
and possible on new regional daytime services. A year ago VIA
tested DMU's in the corridor between Ottawa/Kingston and Toronto
and between Toronto - Kitchener. The total cost per train km were
lower than LRC equipment, even though VIA had two
persons for driving duties when only one is required. (see
Appendix 1).
Lloyd Axworthy, when still in opposition, promoted the idea of
running daily daytime trains between Winnipeg and both Calgary
and Edmonton. Using multiple unit tilting rail cars, they could
make that trip in 13 hours (The Canadian does it in
15 hours). The speed would have to be raised to 120 km/h (72
m.p.h.).
Such a scheme would only pay, if freight diesel multiple units
having flat car container cars were added (like they now operate
in Germany and are being planned in Britain).
Together with daily transcontinental services, passenger rail
and express freight would become very attractive to both express
freight customers and passengers. Although the tendency is to
look at only the two end cities, it is the intermediate
communities that really benefit.
2. Long Haul Transcontinental
Equipment.
Amtrak has for many years now used bilevel passenger cars. Now
that double stack containers can be used on the main lines, there
would be no difficulty using these cars in Canada. In fact they
already operate between Toronto and Chicago via Sarnia. During
the period that the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy was transport minister, a
set of bilevel cars was tested in regular service between
Winnipeg and Edmonton. It was a very successful experiment.
In 1976-1977 the Pullman Company made a presentation to the
Transcontinental hearings about the bi-level equipment that they
were making for Amtrak. The submission was ignored. Later the
designs and drawings were sold to Bombardier.
When Mr. Peptone in 1981 was the first Transport minister to
make cuts in the west, the Alberta government showed that if
bilevel cars were used the extra cost of new equipment would be
paid off in five years. After five years the paid for equipment
would give reduced costs. When the cuts were made in 1990 by the
conservative government the old equipment of the fifties was
renovated. Steam heating was removed, heating became electric
from new engines and maintenance costs were reduced. The cost of
renovation was expensive and for a little more bilevel cars could
have been obtained. The suspicion was that the government was
determined not to have new equipment because it would imply a
commitment to continuing passenger rail services. The government
now has a chance to make a commitment of new equipment and
efficient passenger services.
The number of bilevel cars should be sufficient to look after
the all year requirements for both the west and the east. The
rehabilitated old equipment can then be used as extras during the
summer months only either added to existing trains or as extra
trains.
The cost of rail equipment is high, but equipment can and does
last a long time. So if there is privatisation, for a contractor
to commit to new equipment requires a long time frame and
therefore long time commitments or contracts. Rocky Mountaineer
can only afford about 1 new car per year. They keep using old but
repainted cars, just like in Britain.
With the privatisation in Britain, leasing companies were
formed, so that operating companies could lease the "old
British Rail" equipment. Now some contractors find this
equipment is not good enough (British Rail had been starved of
investment) the contractors wanted longer contracts so they can
get an economic life out of new equipment. And they got longer
contracts when they ordered new equipment.
In any privatisation of VIA it would be
necessary to keep the equipment in public ownership and lease it
to a contractor. Otherwise the equipment would be sold to the
contractors at fire sale prices and could then easily be resold
to Mexico or other interested parties.
Other cost reductions
Other cost reductions are possible with partnerships. The most
obvious are marketing partnerships. This is already happening in
food services or coffee (Second Cup supplies VIA
with coffee). Another case could be partnerships in equipment
maintenance as part of a purchase of new equipment. The
responsibility and supervision for the maintenance would be with
the manufacturer, the work would be done by VIA personnel.
An other possibility would be to add roadrailers or container
flat cars to passenger trains. However no dangerous goods could
be carried. The private-public mix would here be between say CN
(Private) and VIA (Public). Mail and parcel
movement could also be moved this way, where the alliance could
be with the Canada Post, VIA and say Greyhound.
Even the bus industry is not able to provide a profitable
passenger only service. The incremental cost of providing parcel
services makes the intercity bus services profitable in the west.
In the eastern part of Canada the bus companies have lost the
parcel business and are not able to make ends meet. The
abandonment of VIA Rail passenger services has
actually reduced bus services.
Privatisation
VIA in its submission to the Transport
Committee suggests three alternatives:
- Privatisation. It would mean profit
would come before public interest. Unprofitable lines
would have to be sustained with subsidies at a level only
the private operator would deem appropriate. Back to
costly costing rules?
- Franchising. VIA
would become the government's agent responsible for
awarding franchises, monitoring the private sector
operators and acting as the guardian of the network,
ensuring service continuity. Franchising could be
regional, which could fragment the network. 15 year terms
are envisaged.
- Commercial Crown Corporation. In this
case VIA would become a new
corporation with the tools necessary to operate as a
commercial enterprise, and exploit market opportunities
to their full advantage. It would involve private/public
partnerships, particularly in the management of rolling
stock.
According to VIA all alternatives
require ongoing government funding with a commitment over a long
time. Such a commitment would be best with a dedicated
portion of the gasoline tax to be allocated to VIA (1 cent per
litre generates about $ 300 million per year).
It is highly unlikely then for private or public enterprise to
provide pure passenger rail services without subsidy.
Of the VIA options the Commercial Crown
Corporation would be the best. This Crown Corporation
should be the lean type of operation that VIA has
now become. It would also mean the Board of Directors should be
selected on the basis of competence, commitment and commercial
experience; preferably from a variety of backgrounds, including
legal and engineering professions as well as consumers. It should
not be a patronage appointment. The new Crown Corporation should
established by an act of parliament and permit this corporation
to enter into partnerships. The Crown Corporation alternative
would eliminate extensive regulation, which would be required if
pure privatisation was used. In other words we are talking about
public enterprise.
However Franchising could be used for remote
services. However to franchise the entire western operation, for
example, is not supported. VIA should be a national
organisation providing a network of services. It should not be
fragmented.
Access to Infrastructure
The VIA submission also stresses the
importance of access to infrastructure and on what terms. VIA
has no leverage to negotiate the best possible access at this
time. VIA wants access to the track when the
customer demands it.
The clash here, as mentioned earlier, is that passenger rail
operates on a schedule while freight operates on a random basis.
Maybe combined scheduled fast freight/passenger trains are the
answer. Freight customers might also like the alternative of
reliable scheduled service.
VIA believes that there is ample infrastructure
in place.
Conclusion and Recommendations
- That a co-ordination agency be established within the
Ministry of Transport.
- That common terminals be encouraged.
- That rail airport links be developed at Montreal
(Dorval), Toronto (Pearson) and Ottawa.
- That a fixed amount of the gasoline tax be allocated to VIA,
Urban Transit and the Environment as part of Canada's
contribution towards meeting the Kyoto Emission Reduction
objectives.
- That the Government introduce a VIA RAIL ACT,
establishing VIA as a Commercial Crown
Corporation.
- That VIA Rail be made responsible for providing
passenger rail transportation on a national basis.
- That VIA be assisted in obtaining, either by
purchase, lease or lease-purchase Passenger Multiple
Diesel Trains for service in the Corridor and other
suitable routes, with maintenance supervision as well by
the manufacturer. This equipment should be designed for
productivity and efficiency, rather than looks.
- That VIA be instructed to explore with the
operating railways, the feasibility of Freight Diesel
Multiple Units for possible joint operation with VIA
to be compensated in money or by being given free access.
- That VIA be instructed to explore with the
operating railways, the feasibility of adding express
freight cars to the eastern and western region locomotive
hauled trains. And that VIA as a result of this
partnership be compensated with free access to the track
or compensated in money.
- That the Government set out in legislation the basis on
which VIA, Commuter Rail or Cruise Trains get
access to the tracks. And that the Government set up a
method of arbitration to settle disputes.
- That the Government facilitate negotiations between
Canada Post and VIA to see whether mail containers or
truck trailers can be accommodated on passenger trains.
J.J. Bakker
|