TRANSPORT ACTION NEWSLETTER ! MAY-JUNE 2014 Ontario Report Transport Action Ontario ( Formerly Transport 2000 Ontario)

In This Issue: Fed's budget cuts con- ➢ ’s own data show it is tinue to crush VIA Rail in decline (headline story at right) ! Federal budget cuts hit VIA in 2012, ➢ We explain why TAO opposes 2013, and are anticipated again for 2014. Island airport expansion; Even prior to these cuts, VIA was in se- rious trouble. Mismanaged track up- our research proves decisive in the grades on CN's Kingston subdivision led public’s effort to save Toronto’s to failure to upgrade the Georgetown- waterfront (p. 2) Guelph-Kitchener-London line, and to ➢ California’s high speed rail cutting short the LRC passenger car renovations project. VIA president Marc appeared to be in trouble, but a Laliberté swung into action by cutting closer look shows it is moving for- services across the VIA system in south- ward (p. 4) western Ontario, in the corridor, to the Société de transport de Montréal’s new ➢ VIA’s future is clouded by Canadian in the west, and to the Ocean Azur subway car was unveiled April 28. in the east. First ordered in 2010, Bombardier/Alstom are many problems from sources exter- ! Critics, including Transport Action, jointly building 468 cars for 52 nine-car trains. nal and internal. But Greg Gor- responded to these events by pointing Trains feature a full-width walkway; top speed mick sees some actions that could is 72.4 kph. The cars have rubber-tire trucks, out that cutting trains, closing stations, first developed for selected lines of the Paris be taken now at no substantial cost; more stringent baggage rules, and treat- metro. Montreal’s subway opened in 1966. read his op-ed on page 7 ing long-distance commuters badly would bring a major drop in ridership. And so FROM THE PRESIDENT - ! The Liberal platform, as announced it has. in the weeks before the budget, and con- ! VIA Rail has recently released its PETER MIASEK firmed in the budget introduced on May operating results for the first quarter of Let’s Move Ontario 1, announced the creation of the Move 2014. Tom Box of Port Hope, ON, has Forward, Premier Ontario Forward plan. Key was the estab- analyzed the quite sparse data in this report, drawing what conclusions he can. Wynne! lishment of two 10-year funds - a $15 bil- lion fund for GTHA transit expansion His analysis appeared on the Canadian- ! As I write this and a $14 billion fund for transportation Passenger-Rail listserv on May 31. column, it is the improvements in the rest of Ontario. ! “The news is mostly bad. Revenue is day after the pro- The fund was to be created largely by down, expenses are up, passenger num- vincial election, repurposing existing revenue streams bers are down, on-time performance is and much of the that currently go into general revenue way down,” Box wrote. Load factor (% province is still in (7.5 ₵/l of the existing provincial gas/ seats filled), yield (amount paid per pas- shock over the Liberal majority victory. diesel tax ...continued on PAGE 2 senger mile ...continued on Page 8 I would like to extend Transport Action Table of Contents Ontario’s congratulations to Premier This Issue’s Wynne and the Liberal party of Ontario Federal budget cuts crush VIA Rail...... Pages 1 and 8 for this victory. It was a hard-fought Saying “no” to Toronto Island airport expansion...... Pages 2 and 3 campaign during which many important U.S.A. news: California high speed rail moves forward...... Pages 4, 5 and 6 issues were raised, one of the most press- Transport Canada new rules for railway tank cars...... Page 6 ing being transportation options and Greg Gormick op-ed: Giving VIA its legislative teeth...... Page 7 services, and worsening gridlock in the New surcharge to receive Ontario Report by mail...... Page 7 Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area Contact and membership information...... Page 8 (GTHA) and elsewhere in Ontario.

WWW.TRANSPORT-ACTION.CA Advocating for sustainable public and $eight transportation! PAGE 1 TRANSPORT ACTION ONTARIO NEWSLETTER ! MAY-JUNE 2014

PRESIDENT’S REPORT fund to fund immediate transit and Saying “no” to Toronto transportation improvements. ...continued from PAGE 1 ! ● There is still wide-spread concern Island airport expansion and the HST on the gas/diesel tax) as among transit experts about the Liberal ! On April 1, well as debt financing. This would be plan to proceed with the Scarborough voted unanimously to defer a decision on supplemented by some asset sales and underground subway extension. Transit funds from High Occupancy Toll lanes. Porter Airline's request to expand the experts had universally endorsed the pre- Toronto Island airport to allow jets. The budget identified some ways in vious plan – a 9.9 km LRT with 7 stations which the general revenue shortfall was What happened? For starters, citizen costing $1.9B, versus an underutilized 7.6 groups were piling up evidence of the to be made up, including an income tax km subway extension, with only 3 sta- surcharge on high income earners. negative impacts of expansion, raising tions costing $3.1B. As readers well more and more safety questions not yet ! The funds met many of the criteria know, and as recently described by John addressed. As the municipal election long recommended by advocacy groups Lorinc in a hard-hitting series of articles loomed in six months, that meant the like TAO, such as being dedicated, trans- in Spacing Magazine, the decision to Island airport would be a major election parent, accountable, longer-term and move forward with the subway was en- issue. One effect of deferring the deci- regionally equitable. tirely political to save Liberal seats in sion was to leave the future battle to the ! Another very positive part of the Scarborough. We can only hope, as de- next council. plan was the Liberal interest in Regional tailed design continues and costs become ! has portrayed jets as Express Rail – all-day two-way 15 minute clearer, that the Liberals will again re- bringing more jobs to its hub at the Is- GO electric (EMU) rail service on all GO verse course and proceed with a more land airport and bringing greater conven- lines owned by the province. This was cost-effective technology. It is encouraging the top-featured project in the plan. The ience to their passengers by offering that two of the major Toronto mayoral can- more flight destinations. What Porter idea is very similar to TAO’s “GTHA didates also favour reverting back to LRT. doesn't admit is that its airport plan is a Regional Rapid Rail” vision outlined in ● One surprising feature of the Lib- our July, 2013 report, and has many posi- scale change at the airport and for To- eral plan was to construct High Speed ronto's waterfront. tive features. We are extremely pleased Rail (320km/hr electric service) between that the Liberals picked up on this idea. ! Limiting commercial flights to prop Toronto and London, and ultimately to planes was done on purpose. Opposition Other positive pieces of the plan Windsor. This has been universally by the City to commercialization of the included a commitment to continue to panned by experts. It would be much Island airport goes back to the 1970s and build the already-funded GTHA transit wiser for the province to partner with resulted in a 1983 "tripartite agreement" projects, bus and rail refurbishment for VIA Rail to improve service on the exist- between the federal government, the the Ontario Northland Transportation ing line and throughout southwestern Toronto Harbour Commission (now the Commission, investing in the Ring of Ontario. Speeds of 160 km/hr, with fre- Toronto Port Authority)(TAP), and the Fire, investing in LRT in Ottawa and quent service and upgraded equipment, Kitchener-Waterloo and GO service ex- City of Toronto. Besides limiting the would be a great first component of an types of planes that can use the airport, pansion beyond the GTHA. improvement plan. Any improvements ! Notwithstanding these positive to intercity rail require a partnership the agreement contained a cumulative points, the next four years promise to be with the federal government. As the noise convention that effectively puts a interesting, with major decisions and Liberals were shut out in southwestern cap on the number of daily flights. challenges ahead: Ontario, it awaits to be seen how com- ! Why oppose expansion of the Island airport? Because a jet airport at that lo- ● There is legitimate concern about mitted they will be to this region. ● cation would be a facility that would the long term sustainability of the trans- There are still a few dubious high- overwhelm the waterfront. It would be a portation funds. There will be pressure way expansion projects in the plan, in- massive transfer of rights to public space to reduce the provincial deficit or to re- cluding extending Highway 407 East to a private enterprise. It has taken vol- turn the gas/diesel tax funds to general from Oshawa (current terminus of the unteers at TAO and at NoJetsTO work- revenue. Numerous expert reports, in- first phase of extension) to Highway 35/ cluding from the Toronto Region Board ing for over a year to bring to light all of 115 in Clarington. TAO has long opposed the many negative impacts of the expan- of Trade, Metrolinx, and the Transit In- this second extension phase, as our mod- vestment Advisory Strategy Panel, have sion plan. TAO's research focussed on eling has demonstrated that this highway the implications of runway safety re- confirmed that broad-based new reve- capacity is not needed. nue streams are needed, such as an in- In summary, we believe that the Pre- quirements for jet airports sited near crease in the gas tax, HST or corporate mier and her party are definitely committed waterways. tax. The Liberals need to be encouraged to transportation improvements and believe ! On the day of the debate at City to use the existing fund structure as a the government will live up to its promise Council, NoJetsTO published a large ad foundation, and work towards new reve- to make it a top priority. We will continue in the listing reasons to op- nue streams to fund it. To improve pub- to push for sustainable long term funding, pose expansion (see box below). For the and advocate that the funds are expended lic acceptance, readers will recall that the reasons given, NoJetsTO asked citizens on solid projects based on rigorous business- to immediately contact their councillor Move the GTHA collaborative, including case analyses. We will also continue to sup- TAO, had recommended a kick-starter to urge rejecting expansion. At the top port the province in these efforts. ■ of the list was interference with the long

WWW.TRANSPORT-ACTION.CA Advocating for sustainable public and $eight transportation! PAGE 2 TRANSPORT ACTION ONTARIO NEWSLETTER ! MAY-JUNE 2014 underway waterfront redevelopment. cussions with the TPA about specifics of enshrines full disclosure and transpar- Wider, longer and lower safety zones to expansion. This has lead to a feud over ency in the EA going forward. the airport's runways means severe cur- how to progress. The TPA wants to start ! TAO had another area of concern, tailment of building heights on Toronto's an EA, preliminary runway design, and the secrecy of the current regulatory Port Lands east of the airport. The ref- do an update to its master plan. But the framework regarding the Island airport. erence to $300 million in corporate wel- City has stated that the first order of The April 1 motion requires that the City fare refers to the cost of the expansion be provided with a complete inventory of that will come out of taxpayers' pockets. business is to agree on caps to the num- all regulations from which the Island And not mentioned is the likelihood that ber of flights and passenger volumes. airport and Porter have been exempted the City will have to pay a major part of The City has suggested a 2.7 million an- and all proposed future exemptions. Re- expansion costs. The reference to nual maximum, whereas the TPA has garding these past and future exemp- greater congestion refers to road traffic aspirations of an Ottawa airport-by-the- tions, the City is to be given all reasoning that will occur at the foot of Bathurst lake; Ottawa has Canada's sixth busiest and justifications for these exemptions. Street where one needs to go to get to airport with 4.6 million annual passengers. ! One question that the public should the Island airport. The school and com- ask is, if in the future the airport and munity centre at the foot of Bathurst NO!to!undermining!Toronto’s!$1.4!bil5 Porter were exempted from meeting es- would be put in jeopardy. lion!waterfront!revitaliza;on tablished standards for jet airports, and ! The visual in the ad points to the NO!to!even!more!traffic!conges;on! an accident were to occur, would the space grab as only a picture can. Airports downtown City have additional liability as a party to next to water must exclude boats from a an airport exempt from best safety prac- NO!to!$300!million!corporate!welfare broad area extending beyond a runway's tices in the industry? endpoint to secure public safety. Cur- NO!to!bigger!planes!and!a!bigger!flight! ! The City has also mandated a study rently, the Island airport’s "marine exclu- path!along!our!waterfront of bird populations near the Island air- sion zones" (MEZs) are small (the red NO!to!paving!over!400!metres!of!Lake!Ontario port. It turns out that birds are not in- areas on the map). With runway expan- NO#to!moving!an!en;re!school!to!make! nocent when it comes to the safety of sion, there are two possible major en- room!for!a!parking!lot planes with jet engines. Canada geese largements of the MEZs, one at 450m and cormorants abound on Toronto's NO!to!exposing!ci;zens!to!more!noise,! and one at 720m. Depending on Trans- pollu;on!and!inconvenience waterfront and may be a significant port Canada’s decisions, runway expan- safety hazard for the Island airport in sion may also require additional ap- NO!to!obstruc;ng!and!stalling!the!de5 particular. proach lighting that extends into the velopment!of!our!Port!Lands ! Regarding Toronto Island airport water forcing enlargement of exclusion NO!to!years!of!costly,!wasteful!study expansion for jets, TAO takes the view zones. All of this was never explained by NO!to!hijacking!Toronto’s!harbour!for! that the impacts and costs to Toronto's Porter and it took citizen effort to dis- one!company’s!gain waterfront are too great, that jets belong cover. The ad does not point to addi- at Pearson, that the new express rail serv- tional issues such as jet engine blasts, and ! TAO is proud of its role in sug- ice between Union Station and Pearson airplane fuel transport and storage. gesting two successful amendments to will provide a better alternative, and that, ! The visual clearly shows that the the final motion adopted by the City on in the long term, intercity higher speed new marine exclusion zones to meet to- April 1. One amendment concerned the rail in southwestern Ontario and be- day’s safety standards would close off a required forthcoming environmental tween Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal- huge portion of Toronto's harbour to assessment. The City has required that Quebec City would provide a network of boating. it be given access to all raw data used in travel options that would bring major an EA. This will permit the city and The April 1 vote to defer has been reductions in the use of fossil fuel. Rail others to examine for itself if EA find- travel in all its forms has the potential to seen by some observers as Porter's foot ings, inferences, and conclusion are truly bring about significant greenhouse gas in the door. This is because the motion supported by facts as provided through reductions in the transportation sector in passed permit the City to engage in dis- studies and experts. The amendment contrast to automobile and air travel. ■ - Tony Turrittin Key to map of Toronto Island airport (right): Green areas inside red areas: proposed 200m runway extensions. Red: current marine exclusion zones (MEZ). Grey: Code 3 non-precision MEZ. White: Code 3 precision approach MEZ. Yellow (1st bar): Code 3 non-precision lighting (450m). Yellow (end bar): Code 3 precision approach lighting (720m).

WWW.TRANSPORT-ACTION.CA Advocating for sustainable public and $eight transportation! PAGE 3 TRANSPORT ACTION ONTARIO NEWSLETTER ! MAY-JUNE 2014

U.S.A. rail news highly sophisticated passenger cars. In HSR track is extended over mountains to ! the California situation, that means San Jose using Pacheco Pass. No railway building everything from scratch. But, exists in this area at present. Most of the California high speed rail why should we blink at such numbers HSR track is in place. Step 4: Track is moves forward when numerous countries around the extended from Burbank to Los Angeles ! In the previous issue of Ontario Re- world have completed intercity HSR sys- Union Station and Anaheim. Step 5: Ex- port, we profiled the All Aboard Florida tems and find riders flocking to their tensions to Sacramento and San Diego are (AAF) plans for a fast train between Mi- trains? AAF, by contrast, is being built built. ami and Orlando, a passenger train ini- for roughly $8 million per mile based on ! Another way to look at California's tiative that fits with a shift in the U.S. to much pre-existing infrastructure that HSR is geographically. The 2012 business higher speed rail rather than high speed doesn't need to be built from the ground up. plan highlights the IOS, to be completed rail (HSR) (240 kph/150mph plus). Cali- ! With a very much concerned Gov. by 2022 at a cost of $31 billion. It in- fornia is the exception. Adoption of Brown looking over its shoulders, cludes HSR from north of Fresno to Proposition 1A (Prop 1A) in a state-wide CHRSA moved to revise their business Bakersfield. This track is extended to referendum in 2008 mandated building plan to bring down costs. A new draft Palmdale where it would connect with European/Asian-style HSR and author- plan was ready by November 1, 2011 Metrolink service to the San Fernando ized a $10.9 billion bond issue for the which led to the 2012 business plan pub- Valley and LA. The ISO would offer project. The California High Speed Rail lished in April 2012. CHRSA proposed a completion of 300 miles of HSR track Authority (CHSRA) was created to man- "blended system" which stretched out from Merced to the San Fernando Valley. age the project. construction over time. Simultaneously, Caltrain would upgrade ! High speed trains would connect San ! The blended plan concentrates on its San Jose-San Francisco commuter rail Francisco (SF) to Los Angles (LA) the Central Valley for its Initial Operat- line to accommodate future CHRSA through the Central Valley, extending to ing Section (IOS). Simultaneously, it high speed trains. Anaheim, a route of 520 miles. Time of introduces investments that yield imme- ! Completion of the ISO is seen by travel between endpoints was estimated diate benefits for commuters and Amtrak the CHSRA as necessary to secure pri- at 2 hours 40 minutes. The estimated at the "bookends" of the San Francisco vate sector financing. With track in cost of building the core segment of the Peninsula and the LA Basin. As the spine place, and with ridership likely increasing system was originally $43 billion. Once line through the Central Valley is built, substantially on the Amtrak trains that up and running, it was calculated that the "bookends" are also upgraded to fast would move over to it as it opens, a revenues would cover operating costs train status, but not to HSR. For in- private-sector operator would then be with surpluses sufficient to pay for exten- stance, San Francisco Peninsula commut- willing to step forward to acquire a con- sions to Sacramento in the north and San ers will benefit from the electrification cession to operate high speed trains in Diego south of LA. of the Caltrain route from San Jose to exchange for payments to the CHSRA. ! For many years, public support for San Francisco, which will later be used ! The Bay to Basin part of the project HSR in California has been strong, in for the entrance of SF-LA bullet trains would cost an additional $20 billion and part because the CHSRA has done ex- into downtown San Francisco. Amtrak would put into service an additional 110 tensive community outreach in develop- will be able to use high speed track as it miles of track from Merced to San Jose ing its plans. But public support has de- becomes available in the Central Valley. by 2026. Trains from the LA Basin would teriorated as costs estimates have risen This change in the CHRSA's plan is the use the electrified Caltrain commuter based on detailed engineering studies. In main source of the reduction in cost of line to gain access to downtown San 2009, one figure in the media for the the project. Francisco. core segment was $67.3 billion before the ! The blended plan has five steps. ! Phase 1 Blended would add the final purchase of trains. After taking office in Step 1: The first HSR track is built 110 miles of track (total of 520 miles), and January 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown asked the Fresno to Madera (Merced), later ex- would be completed by 2029 at an addi- CHSRA for a new hard-nosed estimate tended to Bakersfield. Caltrain moves tional cost of $17 billion. Metrolink of costs. In November 2011, CHSRA forward with electrification. Work starts track would be upgraded from LA to released a new business plan that priced on the difficult project of building HSR Anaheim. It should be noted that com- the core segment at $98.5 billion, a figure from Bakersfield over the Tehachapi pleting the 520 mile system at an esti- that created instant sticker shock across Mountains to Palmdale for which the mated total cost of $68 billion works out the state. This cost estimate works out state has set aside an initial $4 billion. to $130.8 million per mile. to about $190 million per mile of route. Metrolink in LA begins study of its Ante- ! The blended plan proposed by the ! The cost of HSH is obviously very lope Valley commuter line which will CHSRA in 2012 holds one, and perhaps high. Why? Because it requires new provide future bullet train access into the two compromises. The first is the use of right-of-way through land acquisitions, LA Basin. Step 2: New rolling-stock ca- Caltrain to gain entry into San Francisco totally grade-separated track with gentle pable of 220 mph would go into service from San Jose. As a commuter rail line, curves (thus costly embankments, via- when a track segment is available and top speed is 79 mph for 52 miles. Cities ducts, trenches and tunnels), new amen- operating costs can be recovered from on the Caltrain route were strongly op- ity intensive large stations, computer fares. Work continues to extend HSR posed to a new HSR line grade-separated controlled trains, electrification, and track to Burbank in the LA Basin. Step 3: and running at very high speeds. The

WWW.TRANSPORT-ACTION.CA Advocating for sustainable public and $eight transportation! PAGE 4 TRANSPORT ACTION ONTARIO NEWSLETTER ! MAY-JUNE 2014 compromise averts what could have been hand, $2.6 billion in Prop 1A bonds and that the blended system is substantially a nasty battle with local communities other state bonds, further federal sup- different from the fully grade-separated undermining support for HSR more gen- port, and from local funds. Governor system promised by Prop 1A, that the erally. In Los Angles, similarly, the high Brown is on side for using state Cap and sharing of track with commuter trains speed line will make use of Metrolink for Trade derived revenues from the auction- cannot deliver the promised 2 hour 40 its stops in the LA Basin (Burbank, LA ing of emission credits for CHSRA minute end-to-end trip time indicated in Union Station, Anaheim). This route will shortfalls in funding. A plan now in the Prop 1A, and that the system would re- also require electrification. However, the state legislature would divide such reve- quire a public subsidy to operate which Metrolink tracks that the high speed nues up for affordable housing, transit Prop 1A said would not be required. trains would use are at a distance from operations, high speed rail, intercity rail, These shortcomings amount to an illegal residential areas and so a track speed and parks and wetlands. Such revenues spending of public funds on the high above 79 mph may be possible. Not would be stable and grow with time. speed rail project, they maintain. building a separate grade-separated high ! In June, 2013, the CHRSA awarded a ! On Nov. 5, 2013, Sacramento County speed entry to downtown San Francisco construction contract for civil works Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny from San Jose allowed the project cost of worth $985 million to the joint venture suspended the release of funds from Prop California HSR to be reduced by $30 billion! of Tutor Perini Zachry Construction and 1A bonds to be used by the CHSRA pro- ! HSR in California is the result of a Parsons for the 29.4 mile first HSR sec- ject, ruling that CHSRA violated Prop long-term grassroots movement. It cul- tion from Madera to Fresno. A similar 1A by issuing a financial plan in late 2011 minated in the 2008 referendum author- contractor selection is underway for a 60 that failed to meet requirements of the izing $10 billion in state bonds to pay for mile track segment from Fresno to near ballot measure. An appeal by CHSRA at the proposed network. Private sector Delano with bids due September 2, 2014 the District Court of Appeal failed. On funds, however, have proved elusive. The and final selection following in November. appeal by the State, the California Su- election of Obama in 2008 brought a The estimated cost is $1.5 to $2 billion. preme Court has sent the new appeal passenger rail champion to the White ! The ability of the CHSRA to move case to the California 3rd District Court House. In his first two years he had the forward with construction has been put of Appeal. benefit of Democratic control of both in jeopardy by a recent court decision in ! While the CHSRA has not yet pro- houses of Congress. In those years Con- a suit by HSR foes in Kings County. The duced a new financial plan, on April 10, gress provided the necessary programs opponents launched a suit against 2014, it released a new business plan as that also backed HSR in California. The CHSRA claiming that plans for the bul- required every two years. The plan re- recession in those years also helped federal let trains to share electrified commuter duces revenues by 5% over the previous investment in rail projects as Congress sup- rail tracks from San Jose to San Fran- plan by 2025 due to a trend towards peo- ported major economic stimulus programs cisco, and to a lesser extent Metrolink ple taking shorter trips. It says that this directed to or including passenger rail. commuter tracks in the LA area, violates change will not alter the ability of the ! In 2009, California Governor Arnold Prop 1A in several respects. They argue system to operate without a taxpayer Schwarzenegger, who personally backed subsidy. While the contractor for the HSR, unveiled the California application first HSR segment has been selected, for $4.7 billion in stimulus funds for no ground-breaking date has been HSR. Funds were requested for LA- set. Instead, engineering studies Norwalk-Anaheim track and stations, and land acquisition contin- grade-separated electrification San Jose- ues. Also on April 10, the San Francisco, and for two Central Valley mayor pro tem of Ana- segments, Bakersfield-Fresno, and heim released letters Fresno-Merced. In January 2010, the of support for the White House announced $2.25 billion in bullet train stimulus funds for California HSR. In California ...continued October of 2010, an additional $715 mil- on Page 6 lion was added specifically for construc- High Speed tion in the Central Valley. In December Rail Plan 2010, based on grants rejected by Wis- consin and Ohio, $624 million was re- purposed to the Central Valley project. In May of 2011, of the $300 million grant rejected by Florida went to a specific Central Valley project. These grants total more than $3 billion. ! On its website, CHSRA estimates the cost of the Madera-Bakersfield por- tion of the IOS at $6 billion. This would Source: San Francisco Bay Area be paid for with the $3.3 billion already in Metropolitan Transportation Commission

WWW.TRANSPORT-ACTION.CA Advocating for sustainable public and $eight transportation! PAGE 5 TRANSPORT ACTION ONTARIO NEWSLETTER ! MAY-JUNE 2014

California high speed rail the lawsuit before Judge Kenny was Transport Canada imposes whether or not all funds had to be in ...continued $om Page 5 place in advance of any construction, and new rules on railway tank cars from six Orange County businesses and that the proposed system could not be ! On April 23, Transport Minister Lisa organizations including Disneyland and built except in its entirety according to Riatt announced new regulations for the NHL's Anaheim Ducks. the original plan. The 3rd District panel railway tank cars in Canada. The oldest ! Will a bullet train time of 2 hours 40 of three judges has 90 days to render a thin-walled DOT-111 cars are banned minutes be achieved? The design speed decision. Meanwhile, CHSRA is spend- altogether (about 5,000 such cars in of HSR track is 220 mph. Even with the ing the federal funds it has received. North America). More recently built blended plan, CHSRA publicly believes With strong champions for HSR in DOT-111 cars, about 65,000, have until that it can deliver that trip time. This many communities in California and at 2017 to be rebuilt or will then be ex- matters for now, given the litigation the level of state government, NIMBYs cluded from use in Canada. Railways CHSRA is facing. Some leading experts and right-wingers are scrambling to foil must study tank car routing and limit believe that this timing may be achieved the bullet train by turning to court ac- train speed to 80 kph or less in built up in test trials, but not in regular service, as tions. Opponents in Kings County area or near bodies of drinking water. time will slip with added stops. In this brought the initial lawsuit that obtained Railways must provide municipalities writer's view, three hours, even 3.5 hours victory last November. They are now with appropriate emergency response would be just fine for most folks for a 520 forming up with another suit claiming a plans if hazardous tank cars are passing mile journey. defective environmental assessment through them. ! Not being able to access Prop 1A process. The opposition is trying to ! Forbes Magazine (3/10/14) has noted bonds would be a major difficulty for the block any Central Valley segment long that most railways own few tank cars; CHRSA. It would also be a blow to Cal- enough so that the Obama funds for this rather they are owned by various liquid train upgrading and electrification. The great project will fail to be used on time and gas manufacturers or large car leasing tab for new signals and positive train which is by 2017. firms. It will be these companies that control and electrification (including ! However, Gov. Brown is not backing will carry the burden of new tank car EMUs) is $1.456 billion. Caltrain lists 11 down. At a meeting with San Francisco regs. Forbes estimates only 14,000 sources of funding for its project, with Chronicle editors and reporters (reported DOT-111 cars are compliant with the Prop 1A funds from the HSR authority pro- on May 17), Brown dismissed concerns latest car standards, leaving 75,000 DOT- viding $600 million or 41% of total costs. over cost, difficulties and scope of the 111 cars that will need rebuilding at an ! If California's HSR project can get HSR project pointing out that California estimated cost of $30,000-$40,000 by the current court hurdles, construc- had helped build a transcontinental rail- (USD) per car. Car builders can turn out tion can move into high gear. The pro- road and the BART system in the Bay about 4,500 new tank cars every three ject enjoys the support of the governor Area. "We can build it. We can link the months. and the state legislature, both Demo- north to the south. We can reshape the ! Public pressure is mounting in North cratic, and this is not likely to change land use in the Central Valley...We can do America to route hazardous goods traffic this election year as Gov. Brown is highly it in an elegant way...It's cheaper than (oil, ethanol, chemicals, etc.) around ur- popular. It is important for the bullet more highways...and it's better for green- ban populations. Needless to say, doing train to get off to a good start. It needs house gases. We can do it with renewable so would require a very large capital cost momentum because it is a 15 year ven- energy...and it will be a model for the and take many years. What is not being ture. Planning continues: On January 24, country...And if 17 other countries can do noted in Canada is that the federal gov- Amtrak and CHSRA issued a joint re- it, California can," Brown said. ernment and provinces have allowed the quest for proposals for the Northeast ! Note: On June 15, the California legis- railway industry to abandon thousands of Corridor and the IOS for train sets to lature approved its 2014/15 budget which kilometres of track that could have been carry 400-450 passengers each. CHSRA provides $250 million for high speed rail, used for moving hazardous goods away would require 15 train sets capable of and also allocates 25% of cap-and-trade from cities. The abandonment of both running at 220 mph (350 kph), and Am- revenues to that purpose. ■ CN and CP track in the Ottawa River trak 28 train sets (replacing current Acela - Tony Turrittin valley is a case in point. As a result equipment) that would operate at 160 crude-by-rail from the west must pass mph (257 kph). Proposals are due May 17 Source:...only in California - Hollywood through Toronto to get to Quebec and with a possible order by the end of the year. community TV takes up high speed rail: the Maritimes. ! On May 23, the 3rd District appeal www.bitesizetv.com/#!/hollywood-goes- ! In addition, much secondary track court heard the State's arguments to lift green/&episodeId=4275 that does still exist is being allowed to Judge Kenny's prohibition of Prop 1A ...see also //www.standupfortrains.org deteriorate becoming close to unusable, a bond sales. The State argued that Prop major safety concern in itself. 1A was wrongly interpreted and only the www.hsr.ca.gov for documents & blog ! Something that is particularly absurd state legislature can determine whether www.caltrain.com see electrification is the secrecy in the movement of dan- gerous goods. Municipalities are advised or not there is sufficient detail in the www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUaEa3vCkJA funding plan to go forward with the bond on hazardous goods movements only sale (which it did in 2012). The crux of HSR video from LA basin perspective after the fact and not in advance. ■

WWW.TRANSPORT-ACTION.CA Advocating for sustainable public and $eight transportation! PAGE 6 TRANSPORT ACTION ONTARIO NEWSLETTER ! MAY-JUNE 2014

Op-Ed Analysis the necessary targets and tools it has al- they can prove it by voting in support of ways required. this bill. ! Now, the party is taking another and ! Should the members of the current Giving VIA its legislative teeth more concerted run at the issue. On government defeat the proposed VIA by Greg Gormick June 12, NDP Deputy House Leader and Rail Canada Act, they can ponder one MP for Gaspé – Îles-de-la-Madelaine, possible outcome of such action. Those ! What’s wrong with VIA? Philip Toone, introduced for first reading Canadians who want a modern rail pas- That’s a question rail passenger advocates Bill C-614, a modified version of the pre- senger service aren’t apt to forget such a have debated almost since the day the vious bill. Over the summer, I will be negative approach when next they have a poor beast was born through a series of working closely with MP Toone and his chance to cast votes of their own. slap-dash manoeuvres in 1977. It usually staff to refine it further. ! The NDP is now articulating a firm comes down to five key items: ! No one should have any illusions position on the future of VIA; the Green ! ● Physical renewal; about this. Under a majority govern- Party has done the same in other mean- ! ● Sustainable funding; ment, a bill originating on the opposition ingful ways. This is the opportunity for ● Experienced, engaged management; side of the House of Commons is likely others to follow suit. ■ ● Improved access to freight railway to be defeated. This was the fate of the © 2014 by Greg Gormick infrastructure; and National Public Transit Strategy Act (Bill C- The views expressed are those of the author 305) and other legislation that would ● Comprehensive, innovative legislation. and do not necessarily reflect those of Trans- have benefitted our national transporta- port Action Ontario. The first four all come with costs, some tion system. extraordinarily large after so many years ! That being the case, a cynic might of deferral. But that last one – legislation ask why even bother. But there are sev- VIA Rail Canada Act re-intro- – requires nothing but a determination to eral good reasons why the presentation duced in House of Commons give VIA the mandate, rights and powers of a well thought-out VIA bill can only it has always lacked. The cost is minimal, pay dividends in the long run. On June 12, 2014, Phil Toone, NDP but the impact would be tremendous, as MP for the Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine ! First, it’s useful for those opposition (Québec), re-introduced his private has been proven in the U.S. Amtrak’s MPs who, obviously, hope to form the enabling act stood the test of time and member's bill, a VIA Rail Canada Act, next government in 2015. With a finely- C-614. This bill was originally introduced its reauthorization under the Passenger honed VIA Rail Canada Act in hand, Rail Investment and Improvement Act of March 5, 2014, by MP Olivia Chow, NDP's they’ll have a head start in bringing about transport critic, but died when she re- 2008 is working equally well. the necessary changes they have es- signed her seat to be a candidate for mayor ! There have been various attempts to poused, but have been unable to bring of Toronto. Modifications and improve- make this happen in Canada over the about while in opposition. ments to the draft bill are expected as it years, but they’ve never borne fruit. ! Next, the bill’s introduction drives moves forward in the House. ■ ! Why? home to MPs of all parties the fact that ! The simple answer is the enactment VIA remains a matter of importance to a of definitive VIA legislation would have not-inconsequential percentage of the Kitchener-Waterloo LRT the power to, at the least, blunt the de- electorate, particularly in areas where the GrandLinq consortium has been se- structive influence of those who have service cuts of 2012 have not been forgotten. lected for the 3P contract to design, build, always opposed VIA’s mere existence. ! Equally important, this is an oppor- finance, operate and maintain a 16-stop That includes modal competitors whose Phase 1 LRT for Kitchener-Waterloo. The tunity to remind voters they should never contract is for 33 years including the three- lobbying reaches right up to the Prime stop asking their elected officials funda- Minister’s Office, unsupportive politi- year construction period. It is to open in mental questions about Canada’s mis- 2017. Dubbed the ION, it will use Bombar- cians in the governments that have been guided rail passenger policy – if it can dier vehicles as designed for Toronto. ■ in power since VIA was poorly launched even be called a policy. What would a and senior civil servants who – in the fully functional VIA look like? What words of one buried government memo would be the extent of its route network? New surcharge for receiving of the past – “earn their points today by Which tools will be used to boost VIA’s a mailed TAO newsletter short-term cuts in government spending.” level of public utility and cost- ! Little wonder every attempt to enact effectiveness? What performance stan- ! At its June 5 meeting, the Board of VIA legislation has been thwarted in the TAO added a surcharge of $10.00 to the dards will the host freight railways have TAO membership fee to cover costs of House of Commons. to meet? ! Earlier this year, the NDP’s trans- mailing a printed copy of the Ontario Re- ! Throughout VIA’s recent turbulent port newsletter. In March, Canada Post port critic, Olivia Chow, introduced a bill years, the current government has on to enact a VIA Rail Canada Act (Bill C- raised postage on first class letters from several occasions said it supports the $0.63 to $0.85. Members may chose to 577). It received first reading on March maintenance of an effective passenger receive newsletters by email at no extra 4, but it required reintroduction when service tailored to the needs of travellers charge. The surcharge goes into effect at Chow resigned to run in the Toronto today. If a majority of the members of the time of renewal which for most mayoral contest. The bill wasn’t perfect, this government are sincere in that view, ■ but it was a good first step in giving VIA members will be this fall.

WWW.TRANSPORT-ACTION.CA Advocating for sustainable public and $eight transportation! PAGE 7 TRANSPORT ACTION ONTARIO NEWSLETTER ! MAY-JUNE 2014

VIA Rail Q1 Corridor deal for VIA - ! We have noted VIA's failing fleet, statistics or train 2012 2013 2014 expansion not declining ridership, rising costs, and contraction, and funding shortfalls which have put VIA Passenger Corridor $47,550,000 $47,342,000 $46,983,000 returning it to a Rail into a downward spiral. It would be revenue Canadian $3,745,000 $3,716,000 $3,116,000 all too easy for VIA to be blamed for its Ocean $2,962,000 $1,558,000 $1,459,000 national network of integrated current situation which has multiple Passengers Corridor 869,000 887,000 890,000 train services. causes both internal and external. We Canadian 15,000 15,000 11,000 Amtrak, the hope to be able to provide more informa- Ocean 34,000 16,000 15,000 tion on VIA's plight in the next several train network in issues of this newsletter, and, as always, to Passenger Corridor 141,933,000 154,527,000 155.480,000 the U.S. that gets provide useful suggestions for a turn- miles Canadian 16.127,000 16,970,000 12,828,000 both federal and around. Ocean 13,687,000 7,788,000 7,135,000 state funding, ! One element of a turnaround that Subsidy/ Corridor $0.32 $0.30 $0.31 demonstrates doesn't cost bucks is to address VIA's passenger Canadian $1.06 $0.89 $1.22 that there is a legal limbo. Greg Gormick considers the mile Ocean $0.76 $1.20 $1.39 high demand for possibilities elsewhere in this issue of rail travel when a Ontario Report. ■ - Tony Turrittin Fed’s budget cuts to VIA system is continuously modernized, serv- ...continued from Page 1 ices expanded, and given sufficient and appropriate capital and operating funds MEMBERSHIP AND in fares), and riders in the corridor are up. CONTACT INFORMATION ! Box was able to establish some data by governments. trends by comparing first quarter results ! VIA Rail's new president. VIA Email and mailing addresses: for the years 2012, 2013, and 2014, as Rail's top officer has changed hands twice [email protected]. shown in the table above. He noted that, this year. President and CEO Marc Mailing address: Box 6418, Sta. A, while ridership has gone up in the corri- Laliberté stepped down in January at the Toronto, ON M5W 1X3. dor, revenue has dropped, "suggesting end of his contract. Marketing head at Telephone: 416.504.3934 or toll free that there has been more discounting to VIA, Steve Del Bosco, was named in- long-distance 1.866.542.1067 or con- sell tickets." Subsidies have held steady. terim president. On May 10, the gov- tact our President: 905.477.8636. ernment announced the appointment of ! For VIA's premier train, the Cana- Website: //transport-action-ontario.com dian, in the first quarter of 2012 it ran Yves Desjardins-Siciliano as President three-days per week, but was cut to two- and CEO for a five-year term. Desjardins- Siciliano was previously chief legal officer Join Transport Action to help us days per week in the first quarters of 2013 advocate for sustainable transportation. and 2014. Riders and revenues appeared at VIA. His job will not be an easy one given VIA's current condition. By joining Transport Action Ontario, to hold steady into 2013, but plummeted you also become a member of Trans- in 2014. The likely cause of this decline ! Transport Action Ontario wishes VIA's port Action Canada. Members receive is the terrible on-time performance of new president all the best in his new post. Ontario Report as well as our national the Canadian as CN gives priority to its newsletter TransportAction. own freight trains. The Canadian runs Ontario Report is published by Transport between Toronto,Winnipeg, Edmonton Action Ontario, Box 6418, Sta.. A, Toronto, To join, send your name, address, and Vancouver. Ontario, M5W 1X3. telephone number, email address (if ! The Ocean was running six-days per any), and membership fee to our box week in 2012, cut to three-days per week ISSN 1923-1040 (Print) address above. Our annual member- in 2013. As the table shows, the cuts to ISSN 1923-1059 (Online) ship fees are: introductory (1st year the Ocean reduced revenues and rider- only) $20; regular $35; senior $30; stu- ship almost by half. Not unsurprisingly, Editor: Tony Turrittin dent $25; low income $20; family $50; and as critics predicted, the subsidy has ([email protected]) non-profit affiliate $75; business $170. risen from $0.76 per passenger mile in Ontario Report is published bi-monthly in Transport Action Canada is a registered 2012 to $1.39 in 2014. Transport Action Feb.,Apr., June, Aug., Oct. and Dec. charity and donations to it receive a tax- Atlantic is working hard to return the Contributions of news and items are credit receipt. Its website address is welcome. We are looking for Ocean to six-days per week arguing that //www.transport-action.ca. correspondents. Submissions, including that's the only way the train can be made articles and letters, are subject to Board meetings: July 23 (4:30pm), attractive again and be useful for regional acceptance and editing. Statements in this intercity travel. The Ocean travels be- Sept. 4, Oct. 2, Nov. 6 at 5:30pm at publication are those of the respective CSI, 215 Spadina Ave., Toronto. If you tween Montreal, Mont-Joli, Matapedia, authors and are not official policy which is Moncton, and Halifax. wish to participate, please contact approved by the Board of Transport Action Peter Miasek at 905.477.8636 or by ! Thanks to Tom Box for putting to- Ontario. Thanks to all who helped out with gether and analyzing VIA's recent numbers. email at peter.miasek @rogers.com to issue including Tom Box and Greg Gormick, confirm as date, time and location may ! Transport Action's National Dream and volunteers at the National Office in Ottawa. change. Renewed campaign has asked for a new News to June 21, 2014.

WWW.TRANSPORT-ACTION.CA Advocating for sustainable public and $eight transportation! PAGE 8