Edmonton (Alta.) - 1976 - A review of railway interswitching in the City of Edmonton (1976-04)

T040/4550/1976

2971

A REVIEVV OF ING EDMONTON.-PLANN

Planning Depozuzamsaat

LIBRARY Thu City ot EdmotItati

A Review of Railway Interswitching in The City of Edmonton

Prepared by: Resedrch & Long Range Planning Branch City Planning Department April, 1976 4500a .E3 E373 1976

T040 Edmonton, City of, Planning :4550 1976 A REVIEW OF RAILWAY INTERSWITCHING IN THE CITY OF EDM

T040 4550 1976

SUMMARY

The objective of this report is to summarize and explain the interswitching situation as it exists in the City of Edmonton today. Through a summary of the events which have led to the City's current interswitching situation and an analysis of possible solutions to this situation, it is hopeful that a more thorough understanding of the railway interswitching process as it operates in the City of Edmonton will be achieved. In particular, it is expected that this report will serve as a valuable background information document to the City of Edmonton - Canadian Pacific Railway Facilities Relocation Study, as the question of the City's future interswitching system will be one of the major issues to be addressed in this Study.

The first section of this report defines interswitching as the safe and convenient transfer of engines, cars and trains, from the tracks or lines of one railway to those of another; or it is the interchanging of a carload of traffic from one line to another. The area within a 4-mile radius from the switching point was in the early 1900's delimited by the Board of Railway Commissioners as being the interswitching limit. Within this area, industries may have their goods transported by the railway at a considerably lower rate than those industries located outside the interswitching limit.

The City of Edmonton has three interswitching points: Downtown; Strathcona; and Dunvegan (Figure 1).

At the time of the establishment of the 4-mile interswitching limit, this area delimitation for railway interswitching service was considered more than adequate to provide all the City's industrial areas with switching service. However, due to the growth of urban areas outside the interswitching limit, this limit is no longer sufficient and consequently, the orderly and economic development of rail dependent industry in the City of Edmonton is being seriously affected.

Based upon the realization that the efficient development of land for industrial purposes is dependent on the provision of joint railway service, in 1972 City of Edmonton Council approved and subsequently incorporated the following principle respecting industrial development in the General Plan: "Joint railway service must be provided to all new industrial areas wherever it is physically possible to do so and only those areas treated by the railway companies as being within the interswitching limits should be developed for industrial uses."

Since 1972 the City of Edmonton through negotiations with the three railway companies operating in the City,have attempted to resolve the problems occurring due to portions of the City's industrial planning areas being located outside the interswitching limits (i.e. Northeast; South and Southeast industrial areas). However, due to the apparent inability of the railway companies to negotiate a suitable system which will provide each with similar benefits, the City of Edmonton has been unable to solve the City's current interswitching problem.

. 2

.

-2

Having exhausted the negotiation alternative, the City has two other routes it may follow in an attempt to solve the City's interswitching problem. In fact, in applying these solutions, the initial route will require that these two alternatives be used in conjunction with one another, following which, if this should be unsuccessful, then alternative II alone will be applied.

The first route the City may use is connected with its recently approved City of Edmonton - C.P.R. Facilities Relocation Study. In this Study, the implications of the elimination of the City's Downtown interswitching point - through the relocation of the C.P.R. branch line between the C.P.R. Downtown and Strathcona Yards - will have to be addressed. At this time, negotiations will be required between the City and the railway companies respecting this matter and alternatives for the problems created in the City's railway network will be proposed. It is hopeful that one of the alternative interswitching systems proposed will be acceptable to the railways and through the presentation of the entire C.P.R. Relocation Proposal - including a new railway interswitching system - to the Canadian Transport Commission, the City's current railway interswitching problem may be resolved.

Should the above-noted alternative not be successful, the only route remaining to the City of Edmonton would be to apply to the Canadian Transport Commission for an order requiring the railway companies to cooperate in providing the City's industrial areas with an efficient system of railway interswitching service.

The City of Edmonton is hopeful that through a comprehensive study of the relocation opportunities associated with the Edmonton C.P.R. Downtown and Strathcona Facilities, and consequently, the intimate interrelationship which these facilities have with the overall rail network of the City, that a solution to the City's interswitching problem will be found.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I. THE NATURE OF INTERSWITCHING IN EDMONTON

A.

Definition

B.

History

C.

Current Situation

II. CITY OF EDMONTON'S INVOLVEMENT IN INTERSWITCHING

III. SUMMARY

A. Significance of Problem B. Possible Solutions

1.

C.P.R. Alternatives

4.

Paper Interchange

5.

Routes for Negotiation

APPENDIX I - General Order T-12 Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada Interswitching of Freight Traffic

SI ALIERT

.

C.N. Colder

N.A. R. Yards -v-

Yards

Clover Bar Terminal

ar

1-\

C P. Downtown Yards

C. P. Strathcona Yards

Legend 0 lnterswitching Point Interswitching Limit

Prepared

Fig. 7

: Research and Long Range Planning Branch City of Edmonton Planning Department.

City of Edmonton Railway Network Location of Interswitching Points and Limits

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this report is to summarize and explain the interswitching situation as it is exists in the City of Edmonton today, and the events that led to this situation. The reason for undertaking this report is the need to achieve an understanding of the nature of interswitching, as this particular railway operation constitutes a major issue of concern in relation to the proposed City of Edmonton - Canadian Pacific Railway Facilities Relocation Study. Under the provisions of Bill C-27, The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, the City of Edmonton submitted to the Provincial and Federal governments in October, 1975, a proposal requesting the financial and legislative support to undertake a study of railway relocation opportunities for the Edmonton Canadian Pacific Railway Facilities.

These facilities include the Edmonton Downtown Yards; the Strathcona Yard operations in south-central Edmonton; and the branch line which crosses the North Saskatchewan River (High Level Bridge) to connect these yard areas. Relocation of the above outlined facilities would permit the redevelopment of the Strathcona and Edmonton Downtown Yard Areas for mixed residential, commercial, industrial or transportation purposes, therefore, alleviating a number of serious local circulation problems in the Strathcona and Downtown areas; and releasing prime urban land for development uses more compatible with adjacent property depending on which of these land uses or mix of uses are compatible with adjacent land uses.

The City of Edmonton's concern in relation to the proposed C.P. Railway Relocation Study and the matter of interswitching involves the existence of an interswitching point at 104 Avenue and 110 Street (Figure 1).

At this point, railway traffic originating from the C.P.R. yards on the south side for destinations via C.N.R. lines on the north side (i.e. Northwest Industrial Area) is interswitched (transferred onto C.N.R. lines) by Canadian National Railway, which then hauls the traffic to its destination (this situation also exists respecting the interswitching of C.N.R. traffic onto C.P.R. lines for C.N.R. destinations to the south side). The problem therefore arises, that with relocation of the Edmonton C.P.R. facilities, C.P.R. will

-2no longer have the connection with C.N.R. and similarly, C.N.R. or N.A.R. will no longer be able to engage C.P.R. to haul its southbound traffic to its destination. This explanation of the City's concern is only a superficial one and with the more detailed information to be provided in this report, the complexity of this concern will become increasingly apparent.

This report will deal with all of the interswitching problem areas by summarizing the discussions which the City of Edmonton has been involved in to date, and through an outline of the legislation which has been enacted respecting rail interswitching.

Finally, this report outlines the significance of the current interswitching situation to the City of Edmonton, and puts forth a number of potential solutions to this probjem situation.

I.

THE NATURE OF INTERSWITCHING IN EDMONTON

A.

Definition

Interswitching may also be called interchanging. It is, the safe and convenient transfer or passing of engines, cars and trains, from the tracks or lines of one railway to those of another; or it is the interchanging of a carload of traffic from one line to another. The area within a 4-mile radius from the switching point is known as the interswitching limit. For industries which are located within these limits, the charge for transport of goods is considerably lower than for those industries which are not located within the interswitching limits.

Prior to 1967, there existed the situation whereby either the railway companies or industries themselves could absorb the charges for interswitching. However, in 1967 the railway companies agreed to absorb the interswitching charges within the 4-mile limit. It may be assumed that this action was undertaken in order to increase the competitive advantages of the railway companies in relation to other modes of transport.

-3

Interswitching gives an industrial area indirect access to the lines of other railroad companies even though the track of only one company goes through the area. Interswitchino is possible beyond the 4-mile limit, however, switching charges are generally levied upon any shipment beyond the limit, unless a shipper can negotiate a special rate as is often possible in the case of a large firm.

It should be understood that the term "joint servicing" which is used frequently in this report can mean the provision of rail service by one or more railway companies through interswitching (i.e. using the track faciltities of one railway company) OR it can mean the provision of rail service by one or more rail companies through the development of track facilities to the area by each railway company (i.e. separate rights-of-way). When the term "joint servicing" is used in the following sections of this report, the meaning intended will be identified.

Edmonton has three tariff interchanges where physical interswitching may take place. The interchange points include:

(1) Downtown (Canadian National Railway, 110 Street and 104 Avenue) (2) Southside (Canadian Pacific Railway, 68 Avenue and 103 Street) (3) Dunvegan in the Northwest (Northern Alberta Railways, St. Albert Trail just north of 125 Avenue.)

See Figure 1.

If the C.P.R. Branch Line between the Edmonton Downtown and Strathcona Yards is removed and relocated elsewhere, this will result in the elimination of the Downtown switching point. Consequently, if this relocation takes place, the only choice which C.N.R. or N.A.R. will have for transferring their southbound trains will be through the C.N.R. Clover Bar terminal (Figure 1), or using truck transport to move their goods from the Downtown Yards to the South Industrial Area. Similarly, the only route which C.P.R. will have to satisfy its northbound destinations is to interswitch with C.N.R. at Clover Bar. Obviously, this will create a considerable increase in expenditures for the railway companies.

-

Based upon these considerations, it is quite apparent that one of the major tasks involved in the C.P. Railway Relocation Study will be to work with the railway companies and industries involved in an attempt to resolve the problems which will be created by the relocation of the Edmonton C.P.R. facilities.

B.

History

The origin of the problem of interswitching in Canada lies in the early 1900's when separate railway lines were constructed by the different railway companies to serve different industrial areas in developing cities. In order for each of the railways to serve the complete market area, it was necessary to develop "interchange" facilities where goods could be transferred from one railway to the other. Originally, the interchange of rail goods was a service negotiated between the railway and the industry on an individual basis. However, on October 26, 1918 the Board of Railway Commissioners issued a General Order that allowed railway interswitching services to be available to all industries within a distance of 4-miles by track from the physical point of interchange. At that time, 4miles was a sufficient distance to serve all industrial locations in the developing cities. However, today this is no longer the case due to the growth of cities to areas located considerable distances from the 4-mile interswitching limits.

In addition to establishing the 4-mile interswitching limits, the Board of Railway Commissioners set a rate for this service, and the railways were given the option of completely absorbing the charges or charging the industries involved. In 1967, the railways agreed to absorb completely the interswitching charges within the 4-mile limit.

As as result of the dymanic growth of cities in Canada, the 4-mile interswitching limit is in most cases no longer sufficient to provide all urban industrial areas with interswitching service at

-5

the rate provided to those industries located within the interswitching limits. Edmonton is only one of a number of Canadian cities faced with this problem, and in the case of the City of Edmonton, it is seriously affecting the orderly and economic location and development of industry which requires rail services in their operations.

C.

Current Situation

It is apparent that in order to provide the most efficient interswitching services to industry located or wishing to locate in the City of Edmonton, the Northern Alberta Railway, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways must maintain a relationship of full cooperation with one another. The present situation includes much rehandling of cars into and out of the N.A.R. interchange at the Dunvegan Yards. This could be eliminated and would be far less expensive if Canadian National would allow a direct switch connecting traffic from Northwest Edmonton to Downtown Edmonton, or viceversa.

(i.e. allow N.A.R. trains to use C.N.R. lines to obtain

access to the Downtown interswitching point.)

Another situation exists respecting the interswitching point located in the Strathcona Yard Area. The two railways have agreed that Canadian Pacific will physically move C.N. cars from the Northside C.P. - C.N. interchange (110 Street and 104 Avenue) to make direct deliveries to Strathcona Industrial Park. Without this agreement, C.N.R. cars destined to receivers in the Strathcona area, would require a 20-mile haul via Clover Bar from the C.N.R. Downtown Yards in Edmonton to the interchange facility in South Edmonton.

At this point, interchange by C.P.R. would take place in order to complete delivery to the customer. This cooperation of C.P.R. to direct switch C.N.R. cars to the South Edmonton Industrial Area is in sharp contrast to the C.N.R.'s refusal to direct switch C.P.R. cars to Northwest Edmonton under the normal interswitching agreements.

vre,to

T.

2 •

Sr

e

Northeast Industrial

\

,

South

- Industrial -20 Legend A creages Unserviced

by Rail

Prepared by: Research and Long Range Planning Branch City of Edmonton Planning Department

Fig. 2

City of Edmonton - industrial Outline Plan Areas

The South-East Industrial Area is presently being planned (Figure 2). The City of Edmonton is hopeful that negotiations between C.N.R. and C.P.R. will result in the availability of joint railway service (either through extended interswitching or development of separate rights-of-way) to this area.

However to date, the City's attempts at fostering these negotiations have proved unsuccessful.

The situation regarding interswitching is more severe in Edmonton than many Canadian cities (i.e. Vancouver, Montreal, or Toronto), because Edmonton has only 3 interchange points.

Other cities, because numerous railways were involved in their early development have many more interchange points and therefore, result in a greater area being located inside the interswitching limits. Thus the problems in Edmonton are associated with the fact that historically, only two major railway companies have served the City.

A report was undertaken by the City Planning Department in February, 1974, to co-ordinate a review and preparation of a position for the City in order to pursue negotiations with C.N.R. and C.P.R. This policy paper outlined the alternative positions available to the City. These alternatives are identified in the final section of this report.

There has been some agreement between the railway companies which has helped to streamline operations; however, these were just as much for the convenience of the railroads, as for the "public interest". There appear to be several reasons for this lack of willingness to negotiate and compromise:

a.

The bureaucratic structure of the railroads means that personnel are unwilling to be responsible for comnitting the railways to a particular position. For instance, although the railways admit that the 4-mile limit is archaic, no one has taken a stand as to how far the limit should be extended.

b.

The complexity of the railway operations has meant that it has been impossible to identify total or marginal benefits and costs of different solutions, or to apportion and allocate the benefits and costs rationally. Furthermore, the unpredictable nature of industrial location makes determination of benefits and costs even more difficult.

c.

Competition between the two railroads is not a straight forward matter of each trying to gain a share of the local market. Rather, because they are national railways, every action which they take has regional implications as well. For example, because C.N.R./C.P.R. competition in Alberta is not confined to Edmonton, but occurs in other cities also, the railways bring regional issues into the negotiations.

It is quite realistic to say that the circumstances surrounding the question of interswitching today have completely changed since the circumstances existent in 1918 when an interswitching policy for Canada was first defined. It is now realized that joint servicing (i.e. development of separate rights-of-way and consequently, the provision of rail service by all railway companies operating in the City's network and interested in servicing the area(s) in question) is required for proper industrial development due to the growth of cities to development areas located outside the 4-mile interswitching limit, and due to an increasing dependence by industry on warehouse distribution activity (i.e. increased use of warehouses by industry for distribution of goods, and therefore, an increased use of rail services). To date, with the present limitations on interswitching, if a firm must locate outside the area of total absorbtion, they must accept the additional charges or else transport their goods by truck to the interswitching point which will provide rail service to the required destination at normal interswitching rates. The regulations pertaining to the charges levied for railway interchanges both within and outside

- 8 -

of the interswitching limits are contained under the provisions of General Order No. 1-12 which was passed in February, 1965.

General Order T-12 is included as Appendix I to this report. It should be stressed that cooperation between the two railways would assure joint facilities in the industrial areas and therefore retain a larger proportion of the traffic resulting from less use of truck transport by industry.

As previously stated, the circumstances surrounding the problem of interswitching are very complex. The desired result is for the railways to provide efficient joint service to the industries involved.

The following pages outline the history of the City of Edmonton's involvement in interswitching to date.

71.

CITY OF EDMONTON'S INVOLVEMENT IN INTERSWITCHING

On December 20, 1968 at a regular meeting of City Council, Alderman Leger asked for a report from the Commissioners on the switching arrangement between the C.N.R. and C.P.R., respecting what action could be taken to correct the situation of industries located outside of the 4-mile interswitching limits having to pay interswitching charges greater than those industries located within these limits.

Recognizing the severity of the problem, Edmonton City Council passed the following resolutions on February 24, 1969:

"(1) That the policy that joint railway service must be provided to all new industrial areas wherever it is physically possible, be adopted.

(2) That the City of Edmonton develop additional industrial districts when required, provided that these districts are accepted and treated by the railway companies as being within the "interswitching limits."

o

-9

(3) That due to the concern for the present interswitching service and rate structure being offered by the railway companies, the Commissioners be instructed to negotiate with the companies to solve the service and rate problem, specifically in the Northwest part of the City; the provision of joint service to Davies Industrial Park and to Strathcona Industrial Park; and such other matters of industrial development it may be necessary to consider.

(4) That negotiations with the Railway Companies by the Commissioners referred to in paragraph (3) include representatives of the industries involved and of industry in general as represented by the Chamber of Commerce."

In accordance with this motion, in 1972 when the City of

Edmonton General Plan was consolidated to include all amendments from its original publication (1967), the following principle respecting industrial development was incorporated into the General Plan:

"Joint railway service must be provided to all new industrial areas wherever it is physically possible to do so and only those areas treated by the railway companies as being within

the interswitching limits should be developed for industrial uses".

The rationale underlying this principle rests in the City's desire to ensure the availability of sites within the City to industries requiring rail service and furthermore, to ensure that the interswitching problems currently being experienced

in the City's existing industrial areas are not repeated in the City's new industrial areas.

The following pages serve as an outline of the City of Edmonton's

involvement in the issue of railway interswitching since 1972.

- 10 DATE

June 26, 1973

EVENTS

Letter received from Mr. R.M. Vennis, Assistant Vice-President of C.N.R., stating that the proposed industrial expansion areas could not be feasibly serviced by both railroads.

However, subject to successful

negotiations with C.P.R., C.N.R. would consider arranging a mutual agreement.

July 4, 1973

Response from Commissioner Hughes

sent to the railways requesting extension of interswitching limits or designation of an additional switching point in Southeast

Edmonton.

January 11, 1974

Letter sent from the City of Edmonton

Planning Department to the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities.

Request made respecting rail interswitching and railway service general information.

January 18, 1974

City of Edmonton Planning Department received letter of acknowledgement regarding information request.

February 1, 1974

Letters requesting information on inter-

switching were sent to the Planning Departments of the cities of Calgary, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Montreal.

February 26, 1974

City of Toronto Planning Board responded to requests stating they had no problem with interswitching charges.

February 27, 1974

City of Vancouver replied stating they had no information on this subject.

March 6, 1974

City of Montreal indicated similar response.

March 12, 1974

City of Calgary stated that they had previous problems regarding the interswitching agreements, but that they had been resolved.

April 4, 1974

Copy of a contract between City of Calgary, Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Canadian National Railway sent to the City of Edmonton Planning Department identifying the agreement between these parties.

April 4, 1974

Letter sent to Tom Forgraves, Intergovernmental Officer, from the Planning Department advising that plans to develop a major switching yard facility east of highway 2 and south of 23 Avenue would be unsuitable.

April 8, 1974

Letter received from City of Calgary.

Response indicated no cases of disagreement between the two railway companies important enough to warrant the intervention of the Canadian Transport Commission.

June 24, 1974

C.N.R. felt that rail service could be efficiently provided other than by joint service arrangements and that agreements could be made directly between the two railways.

L11,11y 8, 1974

Letter to file served as record of interswitching discussions to date. Letter briefly stated that negotiations would continue and that the interswitching question should be dealt with separately from any Railway Relocation Studies.

July 16, 1974

C.N.R. offered an alternative proposal for discussion. Suggested an extended switching agreement.

January 22, 1975

Memorandum sent to R. Plunkett, Director, Subdivision Branch, Planning Department requesting the feasibility of C.P.R. obtaining an additional 20 feet of right-of-way along the C.N.R. mainline, to provide a separate line to the area considered for joint service in the SouthEast Industrial area.

February 11, 1975

Letters sent to C.P.R. and C.N.R. from Mayor William Hawrelak acknowledging commencement of negotiations between the railways.

February

13, 1975

Subdivision Planning Branch responded to question of possible twenty foot rightof-way for C.P.R. adjacent to the C.N.R. main line. It was recommended that the City advise C.P.R. that they were not prepared to implement this proposal

April 11, 1975

Letter sent to Mayor Hawrelak from C.N.R. acknowledging the City's interest in the matter of interswitching. C.N. R. stated that the two railways had not been able to

ST ALBCR1

U117,0

1

Joint servicing (same track) agreement between C. N. R. and C P. R.

2

C. P. R. to construct own facility in C. N. R. R/W

0

Designation of new interswitchina point

Prepared by Research and Long Range Planning Branch City of Edmonton Planning Deportment

Fig. 3

Possible Solutions to the Railway Interswitching Problem

- 13-

come to a mutually satisfactory agreement on the extension of interswitching limits.

C.N.R. would keep the City informed.

June 13, 1975

Received letter from Business Development Department requesting information on latest negotiations between the railways on principle of extended interswitching.

June 18, 1975

Planning Department replied stating that the City was in favour of C.P.R.'s proposal, but that all negotiations between the two railways had virtually stopped.

III.

SUMMARY

A.

Significance of Problem

As of April 27, 1973, there were approximately 3,990 acres of land designated for industrial use within the City boundaries located beyond the 4-mile interswitching limits. The amounts of land affected are estimated as follows:

Acres of Industrial Land Area

1.

Without Interswitching

Northwest: The recently annexed y:ca west of 170 Stet and north of Stony Plain Road.

2.

1,400 acres

Northeast: Industrial land in the Belvedere-Kennedale Triangle northeast of 66 Street

350 acres

3.

South: Land south of the interchange on Highway 2, approximately 4-miles south of 68 Avenue.

4.

320 acres

Southeast: Land east of 52 Street

1,920 acres TOTAL

3,990 acres

See Figure 2

These estimates were obtained by comparing Outline Plan area boundaries with interswitching limits. The estimates assume the possibility of new trackage directly to certain areas and therefore, should be considered as minimum figures. Although much of this land is not serviced and therefore is not yet available for development, and even though no level of demand for rail service by industry is known at the present time, the large number of acres in itself reflects the scope of the problem of interswitching which will have to be confronted by the City in the future. In addition, there are approximately 3,200 acres of vacant industrial land within the interswitching limits, however, the majority of this land is also not serviced.

B.

Possible Solutions

The approach used by cities in the past to modify dated railway interswitching policy, involved Provincial - Municipal cooperation in bringing the C.P.R. and C.N.R. together for negotiations.

As indicated in the summary provided above, to date this approach has not been successful in resolving the interswitching problems currently being experienced by the City of Edmonton.

Consequently, a number of other solutions warrant consideration.

Canadian Pacific Railway has suggested that joint servicing to the Southeast Industrial Area can be obtained in two ways.

Joint servicing may be used in the broad sense in which it is also used in the General Plan, that is, giving an area access to both railway companies' service (i.e. separate rights-of-way).

It is usually used in more restricted terms (i.e. the use by two railways of one facility with some sort of cost-sharing agreement as to construction and operating costs). In the following alternatives, "joint servicing" will be used in the more restricted sense.

The first alternative suggested by the Canadian Pacific Railway to achieve joint service (Figure 3) is to use C.N.R's track after their spur has connected to it, and at some point along that track make a connection - presumably jointly with C.N.R. - into the portion of the Southeast Industrial Area which is currently without joint railway service either through extended interswitching or separate rights-of-way. This first alternative would therefore require a joint servicing agreement between C.N.R. and C.P.R. Such an agreement is not likely unless C.P.R. gives some concessions to C.N.R., for C.N.R. obviously has more to lose in terms of increased business than C.P.R. by this proposal.

2.

Canadian Pacific Railway's second alternative (Figure 3) is that after C.P.R.'s spur has been connected to the C.N.R. track, rather than using the C.N.R. track, that they use the same right-of-way, but construct their own track. Obviously, this would be an unnecessary duplication of services, and, in fact, it would be highly unlikely that the Canadian Transport Commission would allow such a project to take place. Upon application by C.P.R. the City of Edmonton, or any other interested party, the C.T.C. would undoubtedly require C.N.R. to allow joint use of it's track by C.P.R. (The C.T.C. has this power under Section 134 (5) of the Railway Act.)

3.

A third alternative (Figure 3) which C.P.R. has neglected to consider, is a means by which service by both railways could be maintained to the Southeast Industrial Area.

This third method would be the construction, or at least designation, of a new interswitching point somewhere near the present 4-mile limit to the area. In this way, both C.N.R. and C,P.R. cars could be carried into the Southeast Industrial Area. However, C.P.R. would lose the complete line-haul and would instead absorb with C.N.R. the charges of interswitching for another 4 miles.

From C.N.R.'s point of view, if service to all parts of the Southeast Industrial Area is to be provided equally to all industries, the construction of a new interswitching point is probably preferable to a joint - servicing agreement with C.P.R. , one reason being that C.N.R. would retain the operating rights on its present railway.

Observing these solutions regarding Interswitching Service versus Joint Service it becomes apparent that from the industrial point of view, joint servicing (separate rights-of-way) is superior to interswitching. Joint servicing implies that a more competitive situation will exist between the railways. It is also less time-consuming, and can provide the benefit of both railways service anywhere along the track, not just 4-miles from the interchange point. Thus, in the long run, in areas where there is sufficient business to support the operation of two railway companies, a joint servicing agreement is more flexible in terms of length of time to receive service and less costly than the construction of another interchange point, assuming that the interswitching facilities do not already exist.

In many

instances, extra interchange points are really only an unnecessary duplication of facilities. This is made abundantly clear in the Edmonton situation, where for the sake of convenience for both railways, an agreement was reached in 1969 to do all the physical interswitching through only one point.

4.

Paper Interchange

The above discussion leads to the possiblity of the railways arranging for a "paper interchange". This term refers to the

situation where if the C.P.R. - C.N.R. interswitching point at 104 Avenue and 110 Street were physically moved (by eliminating the branch line between the Downtown and Strathcona Yards) then, this would remain as the legal interswitching point, but the physical interswitching point would be developed in an alternate location. Consequently, the complicated conditions and agreements regarding interswitching would remain the same on paper, or in legal terms as at present.

Upon reviewing the City-wide interswitching problem, it becomes apparent that negotiations respecting the City's interswitching problem, should not take place only on the basis of the Southeast Industrial Area; rather, reference should be made to the City as a whole. The reasons for this are:

(a) Any change in the matter of servicing policy developed for the Southeast would serve as a precedent and it could be argued by industries located in other areas that the change should be applied to all areas of the City.

(b) The nature of the conflict betwen C.N.R. and C.P.R. and the Southeast is such that it does not appear that a compromise between the two companies is feasible taking only the Southeast Industrial Area into consideration. If a compromise is feasible, it will most likely be reached by the two companies trading benefits in various parts of the City.

5.

Routes for Negotiation

There are several alternative routes for negotiating with the two companies. The one which is ultimately followed will depend on two things - the goals which the City of Edmonton chooses to aim for; and the arguments and tactics used by the railways.

i

- 18The goal of the first alternative should be to negotiate a compromise between C.N.R. and C.P.R. on the matter of joint servicing in the South and Southeast Industrial Areas. In this case, joint servicing means an agreement to run the cars and engines of both companies over the facilities of either one of the companies. Alternative I is a suitable route for the City to follow if it wishes to solve the railroad service problem only in these industrial outline plan areas.

It is the position of the City officials that if C.P.R. is to obtain running rights over C.N.R. track in the Southeast Industrial Area, then C.N.R. must be allowed running rights to C.P.R. track in the South Industrial Area. In addition, if C.N.R. still feels that it is disadvantaged, then the agreement for the construction of track to service the Southeast Industrial Area should clearly apportion the costs of construction and maintenance to C.P.R.

An agreement such as the one above is preferable to either a a decision by C.P.R. to construct duplicate facilities or a decision to go to the Canadian Transport Commission to apply for an order requiring joint servicing in the Southeast Industrial Area. If C.P.R. were to obtain such an order, both C.N.R. and the City would lose. That is, C.N.R. would lose the possibility of gaining joint servicing to the South Industrial Area, and the City would lose because portions of the South Industrial Area would still be beyond the 4-mile interswitching limit and without access to joint servicing. Alternative I is judged to be superior to the alternative in which a new interswitching point would be constructed, or at least designated in the South-East (for example, 75th Avenue and 67th Street). The interswitching limit would be extended another 4-miles, in effect giving the whole Southeast access to service by both railways.

However, designation of a new interswitching point would do nothing to ease the situation in the South Industrial Area.

- 19 -

The objective of alternative II is to apply to the Canadian Transport Commission for either an extension of the 4-mile interswitching limit, or an order requiring joint servicing by both C.N.R. and C.P.R. in all industrial areas of the City (under Section 134, subsections 4 and 5 of the Railway Act).

This alternative is the route to follow if the City wishes to focus attention on the problems of railroad service in all areas of the City, including the Northwest, Northeast, South, and Southeast. In order to successfully resolve all these problems, the City would have to apply to the C.T.C. for support. The primary justification for this required action is due to the fact that C.P.R. lines do not serve either the Northwest or the Northeast, Industrial Areas and consequently, the only means by which these two industrial areas can be given access to C.P.R. service is through interswitching.

If there is no chance of success through negotiation due to the reluctance between the Railways involved to cooperate, the City will have few alternatives on how to handle the situation. In this regard it is assumed that the Canadian Transport Commission will have to be called upon to order the C.N.R. and C.P.R. to cooperate. Perhaps then, the archaic legislation regarding interswitching agreements will become more responsive to the actual needs of cities in their attempts to develop their industrial areas in the most orderly- and economic manner possible.

-20-

APPENDIX I

Under general order No. T-12, The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada has ordered rates for interswitching of freight traffic as follows:

Subject to the provisions of section 14, carriers shall at all times, according to their powers, furnish an interswitching service equal to the service accorded their own traffic at all points where interswitching facilities are, or may hereafter be, provided, under the circumstances and at the tolls herein prescribed;

Provided that no terminal carrier or intermediary shall be obliged hereunder to make any movement exceeding the distances herein specified at the tolls herein prescribed, and that the said distances be irrespective of the location of the interchange or of yard limits or boundaries.

4.

The toll of an intermediary subject to the jurisdiction of the Board shall not exceed, irrespective of weight, $4.50 per car for any distance within and including three miles, or $5.25 per car for any distance exceeding three miles to and including four miles.

5.

If the traffic is loaded or unloaded upon private sidings connecting with the railway of the terminal carrier or directly from or into an industry, elevator or public stock yard, the toll of the terminal carrier shall not exceed 1 1/2 cents per 100 pounds for the actual weight thereof, subject to the minimum weight of the line carrier's tariff, for any distance within and including four miles from the interchange; except that the terminal carrier shall be entitled to a minimum charge of $4.50 per carload of traffic classifying Class 33, Class 30, and Class 27 in the Canadian Freight Classification, and $7.50 per carload of all other traffic.

- 21 -

6.

The toll of the terminal carrier upon all traffic other than that referred to in section 5, including traffic to or from team tracks, shall not exceed 3 cents per 100 pounds for the actual weight thereof, subject to the minimum weight of the line carrier's tariff, for any distance within and including four miles from the interchange; except that the terminal carrier shall be entitled to a minimum charge of $9.00 per car.

7.

Not less than the following proportions of the tolls herein prescribed shall be absorbed in the rate of the line carrier and the remainder shall be an addition hereto:

(a) One-half of the tolls charged by the terminal carrier under section 5 as qualified by section 9.

(b) Of the tolls prescribed in Section 6, one-half of the tolls permitted under Section 5 as qualified by Section 9, as if the movement were to or from private sidings.

(c) One-half of the herein prescribed or lower tolls of each intermediary, if any, whether subject or not to the jurisdiction of the Board.

Provided that the line carrier may, unless its tariff rate is lower, charge and collect $18.00 per car for its haul between the interchange and the point of shipment or destination when by reason of such absorption its line charges would otherwise be less than that amount.

8.

The appropriate tolls hereinbefore prescribed shall be exceeded, for the distances herein specified, in each direction for the movement from and the return to the line carrier of so-called off-line transit traffic, and the line carrier shall be subject to the absorption provisions of section 7 only when its through

-22-

rates are the sum of its published rates to and from the stopover point.

9.

If an extra car, commonly known as an idler, is used solely to take care of an overhang of long articles loaded on an open car, it shall be charged by the terminal carrier not more than twothirds of the herein prescribed appropriate toll from the minimum weight of the line carrier's tariff, except that the terminal carrier shall be entitled to a minimum charge of $4.50 per car.

If interposed between two cars in the same shipment to protect an overhang from each the idler shall be charged for once only.

10.

No charge shall be made for the accessory interswitching of the empty car. If the car is loaded in both directions the interswitching toll shall be charged for each movement.

11.

Subject to the provisions of section 14, nothing herein contained shall prevent the line carrier from absorbing the entire toll or tolls charged for interswitching competitive traffic, provided that the traffic and movements so treated are clearly defined in its tarrifs."