Transport Action Canada (West) Submission to the Standing Committee on Transportation of the House of Commons

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

  • Need Co-ordinating AgencyCommon Terminals for Surface TransportationThe Need for Links to and from Airports

The Role of Passenger Trains

  • Passenger Rail TransportationThe Threat of Rail ClosuresThe 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?

  • Increase Revenue.Freight Partnership instead of Track Access Charges?Equipment (see also Appendix 1).

    Other cost reductions.

    Privatisation

    Access to Infrastructure

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

  1. Distributed power using diesel engines (can later be modified to electric power). Distributed power will give better acceleration.
  2. Tilting capability, so curves can be taken at higher speeds without discomfort to passengers.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  1. The Canadian, from Montreal/Toronto – Sudbury – Thunder Bay – Winnipeg – Regina – Calgary – Banff – Kamloops – Vancouver.
  2. 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:

  1. Restoration of a daily Canadian Toronto – Sudbury – Thunder Bay – Winnipeg – Calgary – Banff – Kamloops – Vancouver service.
  2. Making the present service on the Northern line daily between Winnipeg and Vancouver, serving Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper and Kamloops.
  3. Look into restoration of higher speed trains between Calgary and Edmonton, together with airport connections at Leduc and Airdrie.
  4. Look into daily daytime services between Winnipeg – Regina – Calgary and Winnipeg – Saskatoon – Edmonton. (FDMU + PDMU)
  5. Look into linking the northern service with a Chicago link. (Toronto – Sarnia – Chicago – Minneapolis – Winnipeg).
  6. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. That a co-ordination agency be established within the Ministry of Transport.
  2. That common terminals be encouraged.
  3. That rail airport links be developed at Montreal (Dorval), Toronto (Pearson) and Ottawa.
  4. 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.
  5. That the Government introduce a VIA RAIL ACT, establishing VIA as a Commercial Crown Corporation.
  6. That VIA Rail be made responsible for providing passenger rail transportation on a national basis.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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