Taking the train across Canada is worse for the climate than flying (and why the government ought to do something about that)

Faculty Affiliate, ISSP
Assistant Professor, Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, uOttawa

Despite its reputation as a more sustainable form of transport, long-distance passenger rail travel in Canada typically results in a higher carbon footprint per passenger than long-distance commercial air travel. This is what I discovered after diving into the emissions data (recently published in the journal Canadian Geographer). Here I explain why Canada’s long-distance rail services defy the ‘green’ reputation held by rail transportation globally, and offer some policy proposals for improving the situation.

Trains and Planes: Green and not-so-green reputations

You would be forgiven for believing the train offers a less carbon-intensive means of intercity travel than the same journey by airplane. After all, studies suggest that cutting out flying is one of the most effective ways to reduce one’s carbon footprint, and train travel does maintain a very low emissions profile around the world. The world’s leading authority on transport emissions factors for different modes (the UK’s Department of Energy, Food and Rural Affairs, or DEFRA) claims an emission factor of 12 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per passenger kilometer (g CO₂e/passenger-km) for rail systems globally, while for international aviation the average is 183 g CO₂e (more than 15 times greater!). So yes, generally speaking the train is a far more efficient means of long-distance passenger transportation.

Thanks to their respective reputations, the flying less movement has “taken off” in some parts of the world, with some eco-conscious travellers switching to rail. In Sweden, climate hero Greta Thunberg has inspired a movement known as Flygskam (roughly translating into “flight guilt”), which has seen major declines in domestic aviation demand and a commensurate increase in rail travel. Here in Canada VIA Rail has tried to cash in on rail’s sustainable reputation, recently marketing itself with the slogan “a green choice” (a tag line emblazoned across some of the locomotives which haul its long-distance trains). 

Rail’s global reputation as a climate-friendly mode of intercity transport generally holds up to scrutiny—including within Canada’s busy Quebec City to Windsor Corridor, where VIA operates daily service connecting many of the nation’s largest cities. Rail travel within this corridor is typically the most climate-friendly option. However, when it comes to the climatic footprint of its passenger train services to the West and East Coasts (on VIA’s ‘Canadian’ and ‘Ocean’ lines) the train is actually a poor performer in terms of its carbon footprint. 

The problem

There are a few reasons for this. The main one is that VIA uses old hulking diesel locomotives to haul trains which generally do not carry very many people. And one of the main reasons for that is VIA does not actually own the tracks upon which the train travels—it rents track time from the big freight companies. That creates a number of limitations on the services VIA can provide, including maximum posted speeds (different track classifications in Canada determine safe operating speeds, and for domestic passenger rail the limit is usually 160 km/h). As such, VIA’s Canadian and Ocean lines are considered “mandatory and longhaul” services by the Crown Corporation. The general thinking by management is that no one is choosing to take those trains unless it is either for leisure (to see the great expanse of landscapes across the country) or because there are no other viable means of getting from one remote town to another (the train stops in many towns which have no nearby airports or bus stops). The trip from Toronto to Vancouver, for instance, meanders across the country along 4466 km over a period of 4 days (compare this to the 3349km direct flight, which takes less than 5 hours). The “mandatory and longhaul” label is another way for VIA to suggest they are not even trying to compete with air travel, which generally-speaking is usually cheaper as well (see Table 1). This approach gives the train a “land cruise” feel, where large sleeper cars hold very few people; meanwhile, the economy cars (which hold more people) are not particularly attractive since the seats do not allow passengers travelling the full length of the trip to stretch out flat for four full days.

 

 

Table 1: Comparison of Air and Rail Across Three Long-haul Trips in Canada

2A. Toronto to Vancouver (TtV)					Carbon Footprint per passenger (kg CO2e)
Mode	Case Details	Fare Range (excl. taxes)	Travel distance (km)	Total travel time (hours)*	Economy (low est.)	Economy (high est.)	Premium (low est.)	Premium (high est.)
Air	Air Canada direct flight	$369 - $2876	3349	4.8	464	767	1170	1690
Rail	VIA Rail's 'The Canadian'	$462 - $4856	4466	97.3	724	4287	724	4287
2B. Windsor to Québec City (WtQ)					Carbon Footprint per passenger (kg CO2e)
Mode	Case Details	Fare Range (excl. taxes)	Travel distance (km)	Total travel time (hours)	Economy (low est.)	Economy (high est.)	Premium (low est.)	Premium (high est.)
Air	Air Canada (1 connection: in Toronto)	$205 - $1042	1046	3.5	157	221	391	552
Rail	VIA Rail (2 connections: in Toronto and Montreal)	$147 - $546	1169	16.9	36	63	36	63
2C. Montréal to Halifax (MtH)					Carbon Footprint per passenger (kg CO2e)
Mode	Case Details	Fare Range (excl. taxes)	Travel distance (km)	Total travel time (hours)	Economy (low est.)	Economy (high est.)	Premium (low est.)	Premium (high est.)
Air	Air Canada direct flight	$160 - $805	805	1.5	152	193	380	482
Rail	VIA Rail's 'Ocean' line	$130 - $1186	1346	22	218	1292	218	1292
* Average travel time estimates include layovers.

Table from Ryan Katz-Rosene, 2020. “A Not-So-Green Choice? The High Carbon Footprint of Long-Distance Passenger Rail Travel in Canada,” Canadian Geographer.

Thanks to those diesel-guzzling locomotives hauling fairly empty trains, the emissions factors for the Toronto to Vancouver and Montreal to Halifax lines are much higher than DEFRA’s international rail averages. While I had long suspected as much, I did not realize just how bad it was until I heard from two good Samaritans who had been pestering VIA for the emissions data for their own rail journeys. It turns out the Canadian averages 162 g CO₂e/passenger-km, while the Ocean Line averages a whopping 960 g CO₂e/passenger-km (according to VIA’s own supplied data)! Despite multiple efforts made to confirm the figures with VIA Rail, the Crown Corporation did not offer any alternative figures. 

This means Canada’s long distance rail emissions factors are orders of magnitude worse than international emissions factors. And, they are typically worse than domestic flight emissions factors too. According to the flight carbon calculator offered by Atmosfair, an ‘economy’ flight on Air Canada between Toronto and Vancouver would produce about 464 kg of CO2e per passenger, while the same trip by train would generate 724 kg CO2e per passenger. The flight-based emissions also include what is called the “radiative forcing uplift” (in short, when planes are at high altitudes warming impact is more significant than just their carbon dioxide emissions). In short, to the dismay of anyone who has boarded The Canadian or The Ocean lines as an environmentally-friendly alternative to flying (and that includes yours truly), the facts suggest in this particular case—even when including the additional climatic footprint of aviation—flying is the lesser of two evils.

Potential Solutions

Things ought to be different. As noted above, the average carbon footprint for international passenger rail is a mere fraction of Canada’s long-haul rail footprint. Meanwhile, the federal government claims to be committed to fighting climate change. How are Canadians going to remain connected, visit family, travel for work, etc., while reducing their personal and collective carbon footprints? What is to be done? Surely, we should not count on flying to serve as the most climate friendly means of cross-country travel! 

Let us remember that VIA is a Crown Corporation. While independent, it is owned by the government, and it has a unique mandate to serve us, the public. While this has sometimes worked to VIA’s disadvantage (when austere governments have defunded the company) it also serves as a lifeline offering tremendous potential for transformative projects. Some present high-speed rail as a viable alternative. The reality is that such massive infrastructure projects are not particularly viable for trans-continental travel. They take years to build and are extraordinarily expensive and energy-intensive, and the idea has failed time and time again in this country (even in those corridors where it makes sense). 

I would suggest that a few simple changes and smart public investments could go a long way to improving the train’s environmental performance. First, we need to fill up those trains. Let’s separate the “elite land cruise” leisure trains from passenger-focused trains and improve the load factors by adding more seating/sleeping space in each car along with subsidized fares. Theoretically, an improvement of 25% in the average load factor would result in an equivalent improvement in fuel efficiency. Let us also change up the locomotive technology, and invest in new research and development. Some rail companies in North American are currently testing battery-powered locomotives alongside diesel ones. The Canadian could easily slice its carbon footprint by adding an electric locomotive to its locomotive “consist” (provided the electricity it is drawing upon is generated by low carbon sources). Alternatively, the Crown Corporation could consider alternative low-carbon fuels (such as biodiesels, or synthetic fuels, or even hydrogen—which could be extracted from Alberta’s oil sands deposits). Alternative fuels would allow VIA to continue regular service with a substantially lower carbon footprint. 

Finally, we ought to consider buying up more independent grade-separated track for the nation’s rail provider. This would allow VIA to avoid untold delays working around the freight schedules, bringing down the trip time and enabling additional journey capacity. Mostly though, we ought to think of the potential the train holds as a different kind of competitor for fossil-intensive flying. A trans-continental train will never be able to match the plane in terms of its speed, but it offers a whole different experience—as the Flygskam notes. In the age of climate change, there is something to be said about taking it a little slower, and appreciating the journey as it unfolds.