Evaluation of the Remote Passenger Rail Program

Evaluation of the Remote Passenger Rail Program
(PDF, 1.02 MB)

Report outlining the results of the Evaluation of the Remote Passenger Rail Program.

1.0 Program background

1.1 Program context

Rail services are crucial for many remote communities, providing affordable transportation options and access to essential services, such as medical services, employment, and educational opportunities (2021 Funding document; Remote Passenger Rail Program Terms and Conditions).

The Remote Passenger Rail Program (RPRP) was created in 2005 to ensure the continued provision of passenger rail services, in certain established remote communities, where rail is the only means of surface transportation. Figure 7 in Appendix A illustrates the passenger trends over the last six years.

A community is considered remote if it does not have year-round access to the national surface transportation system via a network of public or private roads. (2021 Funding document)

Currently, the RPRP supports two First Nations-owned railways: Tshiuetin Rail Transportation (TRT) and Keewatin Railway Company (KRC).

1.2 Program description

Located in northeastern Quebec and western Labrador, Tshiuetin Rail Transportation^{Footnote 1} was the first railway in North America to be owned and operated by a First Nations group and is jointly managed by Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani Utenam, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, and the Innu Matimekush Lac-John Nation. The company owns the track between Emeril and Schefferville and provides rail services between Sept-Îles and Schefferville.

For TRT, the RPRP provides both operational funding (e.g., for train fuel and crew salaries) and capital funding (e.g., for rail line rehabilitation, equipment acquisition, facility construction/maintenance).

A map with a line representing the TRT railway route. From North to South, the following stations that lay along the route are labelled: Schefferville, QC (Northern terminus); Emeril Junction, Labrador; Sept-Îles, QC (Southern terminus). — Figure 1. TRT route map
Source: Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Rail Network

Located in Northern Manitoba, Keewatin Railway Company is jointly owned by Tataskweyak Cree Nation, War Lake First Nation, and Mathias Colomb Cree Nation. The company owns the track between Sherritt Junction and Lynn Lake and operates rail services between The Pas and Pukatawagan.

KRC receives capital funding only through the RPRP; it receives operational funding through a separate agreement with VIA Rail.

Since entering into an operating agreement with KRC in 2006, VIA Rail has contributed an annual amount towards the company’s operating expenditures and reports on select financial details in its Annual Report (VIA Rail; 2006-2022).

A map with a line representing the KRC railway route. From North to South, the following stations that lay along the route are labelled: Lynn Lake, MB (Northern terminus); Herriot, MB; Pukatawagan, MB; Sherritt Junction, MB; The Pas, MB (Southern terminus). — Figure 2. KRC route map
Source: NRCan Rail Network

In support of the department’s core responsibility to provide an efficient transportation system, the RPRP funds the provision of safe, reliable, viable and sustainable remote passenger rail services while also contributing to the social and economic development of the remote communities located along the two railways.

In general, the expected results are to A) ensure the continuation of passenger rail services (with a minimum number of trips per year at an affordable cost for the users) and B) to support the efficiency of the railways, in terms of travel time.

The RPRP is delivered by TC’s Transportation Infrastructure Programs (TIP) branch, which is also responsible for preparing funding submissions.

The RPRP draws on B-Base (temporary) funding and must periodically be renewed. After an extension is approved, the disbursement of funds is provided through contribution agreements between TC and each of the railways.
During the last renewal exercise in 2021, the RPRP applied for 5 years of funding and was approved for three. Budget 2024 allocated $63.1 million over three years, starting in 2024-25, for Transport Canada to renew the RPRP.

Table 1 below shows actual spending by the RPRP from 2017-18 to 2022-23 (in millions), with disbursements totaling close to $72M over six years:

Table 1. RPRP funding disbursements (actuals) by fiscal year (in millions)
Railway	Funding Type	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	Total
TRT	Operating	6.74	7.59	7.50	7.50	9.00	9.30	47.63
TRT	Capital	1.64	2.45	2.05	1.98	3.00	3.10	14.22
TRT	Sub-total	8.38	10.04	9.55	9.48	12.00	12.40	61.85
KRC	Operating	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
KRC	Capital	1.65	1.65	1.65	1.65	1.73	1.75	10.08
KRC	Sub-Total	1.65	1.65	1.65	1.65	1.73	1.75	10.08
Both	Grand Total	10.03	11.69	11.20	11.13	13.73	14.15	71.93

Note that during the RPRP's previous renewal in 2021, funding was increased to reflect adjustments for inflation and the rising costs of operational requirements, particularly in remote/Northern regions.

In addition to regular program costs, recent renewals have included a one-off contribution to help address longstanding issues linked to ageing equipment and infrastructure:

For example, in 2021, $34.2M in one-time funding was approved for KRC to acquire additional rolling stock and address safety and capacity issues.

1.3 RPRP results chain

A hierarchical chart showing the immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes for the RPRP. — Figure 3. RPRP Results Chain
Source: RPRP Terms and Conditions, 2020

2.0 Evaluation context

2.1 Evaluation background and scope

The RPRP is subject to the mandatory evaluation provisions listed in section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act, which requires that all programs of grants or contributions, that meet a specific financial threshold, be evaluated every five years. Due to this requirement, RPRP has been evaluated on two prior occasions (2014 and 2018). This evaluation covers the period between 2017-18 and 2022-23.

2.2 Evaluation questions

The evaluation questions focused on the core issues of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency/economy. The evaluation questions are listed in the RPRP Evaluation Matrix (see Table 5 of Appendix A).

2.3 Evaluation challenges and limitations

Most capital funding under the RPRP supports ongoing activities (such as track maintenance) rather than one-off projects with a defined start and end. As such, quantitative data describing funded capital projects were not readily available.

The RPRP must rely on TRT and KRC to provide data pertaining to each railway's operations, and in some cases the funding recipients lack the capacity to track these data consistently.

For KRC specifically, key operational data (such as the number of round trips per year) were not consistently available, as KRC reports these numbers to VIA Rail, rather than to TC, in accordance with their operating agreement (as described previously).

2.4 Evaluation methods

A mixed-methods approach was utilized. Data collection methods included the following:

2.4.1 Document review

Review of program documents, external documents such as news articles, and government priority setting documents, to inform issues of relevance and performance.

2.4.2 Interviews (11 interviewees)

Semi-structured individual and group interviews were conducted with:

Program staff (5)
Recipients (4) and
Representatives from Rail safety (2)

2.4.3 Data review (where available)

Review of performance-related data
Review of program-related operational data
Review of human resource and financial data

3.0 Findings

3.1 Program relevance

Finding 1: There is an ongoing need to provide passenger rail services to remote communities along the rail lines served by TRT and KRC. The RPRP addresses this need.

The RPRP aligns with the federal government's priority to support economic growth in remote and Indigenous communities and its commitment to ensuring reasonable access to the national transportation system for remote communities.

“The community we serve up north in Schefferville is very isolated, not accessible by road. The railway is the lifeline for the community in Schefferville. It’s an essential lifeline. Everyone depends on the railway company to go there, it’s a way to go south to join the rest of the province.” – Interview participant

There was consensus among interviewees that RPRP funding is essential to ensure the continued operation of passenger rail services. Several interviewees felt there was a risk that RPRP funding could be insufficient going forward given the rising costs of equipment, materials, labour, the maintenance of ageing infrastructure, and emerging factors like climate change.

There are limited sources of public funding available to the recipients beyond the RPRP. Though the recipients can access limited funds through bank loans and TRT has some revenue from their freight operations, both railways depend on RPRP funding to maintain their operations.

Paying interest on loans and lines of credit also absorbs funds that could otherwise be used to purchase equipment or perform track maintenance.

“No, we could not maintain rail passenger safety and reliability without federal funding. Almost 100% of the program funds [are used] to maintain the tracks. In Manitoba [there are] harsh weather conditions.” – Interview participant

Federal funding for passenger rail services in remote communities is essential to ensure that individuals from these communities can access the ground transportation network and access essential medical services, as well as educational and employment opportunities.

The remote communities served by TRT and KRC do not have year-round access to roads. Further, these communities have limited access to winter roads. For example, one interviewee noted that the winter road in Pukatawagan is now only accessible for one month (instead of three) due to climate change. Interviewees also confirmed that no new roads have been built (and that it would be too costly to build) in these remote areas.

Though Pukatawagan and Schefferville have access to small airports in their communities, travelling by air is not a feasible option as air tickets are very costly.

The price of a round-trip plane ticket to The Pas and Sept-Iles would be approximately $800 for residents of Pukatawagan (KRC) and $1 900 for those in Schefferville (TRT), respectively^{Footnote 2}. This cost is prohibitive for many residents when compared to the cost of a round-trip train ticket (approximately $100 for KRC and $175 for TRT).
In addition to being more expensive, travel by air is often less flexible and offers limited capacity. Flights between The Pas and Pukatawagan only seat seven people and tickets must be reserved a week in advance^{Footnote 3}.

“TRT and KRC offer means of transportation that are essential and affordable to destinations for Indigenous communities that are otherwise isolated from the national transportation system.” – Interview participant

Evidence also suggests that RPRP funding supports positive social and economic impacts in the communities served by both railways.

Interviewees indicated that the Indigenous-owned and operated railways are a source of community pride and have helped to create jobs for the residents of Pukatawagan and Schefferville. Further, KRC's track maintenance teams are comprised of local Indigenous residents and 85% of all TRT employees are Indigenous (Rail Policy documents).

In July 2022, active wildfires threatened the community of Pukatawagan. KRC was instrumental in evacuating approximately 1 500 community members to safety. One interviewee noted that KRC incurred operating costs during this time that were well above average and that there was no way to recover them.

News article: “A Canadian Red Cross official in Manitoba estimates close to 2,000 people have been evacuated from a First Nation threatened by a wildfire over the last several days using planes, helicopters and trains.” (Canadian Press, 2022)

A picture of a crowd of people waiting to board a KRC train to escape from wildfires threatening their community. The sky is hazy and orange from smoke. — Figure 4. Residents of Mathias Colomb Cree Nation evacuating by train
Source: Anthony Mayham/KRC

3.2 Program effectiveness

3.2.1 Assessment of RPRP indicators

Finding 2: TRT consistently surpassed the minimum thresholds for round trips and ticket prices during the evaluation period. KRC demonstrated strong performance in both indicators for the years with available data. However, incomplete data for KRC hindered a comprehensive assessment for the entire evaluation period.

TRT surpassed the target of 52 round trips from 2017-18 to 2022-23 with an average of 78 round trips per year.

Data for KRC was only available in 2019-20, where it exceeded the target. No data were available for other years (due to their operating agreement with VIA); however, program staff confirmed that KRC had consistently met the target during this period except for the 2020-21 fiscal year (due to COVID).

Bar graph and data table depicting the number of round trips per fiscal year for each railway, from 2017 to 2022. — Figure 5. Number of TRT and KRC round trips per year from 2017 to 2022

TRT and KRC ticket prices met their goal by staying below a 30% increase compared to the prices in the previous years.

Table 2. Ticket price increase (%) by fiscal year
Target:	Increase of less than 30% of the price in the previous year
Railway	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
TRT	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
KRC	2%	2%	2%	25%	0%	0%

Finding 3: Both TRT and KRC provided safe rail services from 2018-2022.

Although no specific safety performance indicator was specified in the RPRP results chain, safety is an integral component of the RPRP's overarching program objectives.

Between 2018 and 2022, there were no injuries or fatalities resulting from accidents or incidents for either KRC or TRT.

Bar graph and data table depicting the average 5-year accident and incident rates for TRT and KRC. — Figure 6. Average number of accidents and incidents for TRT and KRC (2018-2022)

Notes:

Rail accident/incident rate is a TC departmental indicator for the result “A safe transportation system.”
Evaluators determined that comparing the TRT and KRC results with the TC rate is inconclusive, primarily due to contextual variations and the lack of uniformity in the measurement strategy.
The key difference between an accident and incident is the severity of the occurrence or the potential for injuries or fatalities, with accidents being more severe.

3.2.2 Capital projects and their impact

Finding 4: Capital funding is largely used to support critical ongoing activities such as maintenance and repair of infrastructure and equipment.

Interviewees conveyed that most capital projects for KRC and TRT were executed according to plan.

There are specific challenges associated with completing capital projects in remote locations (e.g., harsh weather, transportation and availability of materials, increased cost of materials, etc.) and interviewees mentioned that the RPRP was flexible in managing/reprofiling funds when obstacles would arise.
The program staff indicated that unlike projects with a clear start and end date, the TRT and KRC projects differ from typical major infrastructure projects as they involve ongoing activities like track maintenance, repair, and inspections.

Interviewees voiced concerns about the expenses linked to newly regulated safety equipment purchases, specifically the installation of cameras on trains.

“The challenge is it costs us about half a million to install these cameras, and the agreement is so rigid so we couldn’t ask for more money to cover this.” – Interview participant

Finding 5: Vegetation control along railway tracks poses a growing safety threat with potential implications for rail operations.

Rail safety inspectors noted that both TRT's and KRC's tracks are in good condition and both companies have sufficient maintenance programs.

An emerging risk that was noted for both railways was encroaching vegetation. If left unchecked, encroaching vegetation could lead to visibility issues, track degradation, wildlife hazards, and wildfire threats.

“The only major concern I had last year when I went to visit them was ... an abundance of vegetation...Vegetation could obstruct the rail or signs...” – Interview participant

“The one thing that … is going to compromise their operations, or going to make it more and more difficult, is station control and vegetation control. They don't have a good spray program.” – Interview participant

3.2.3 Impact of unforeseen factors on TRT and KRC performance

Finding 6: The adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors have heightened concerns about the need for contingency funding for emergency situations.

Interviewees emphasized the need for contingency funds (akin to those available through the National Trade Corridors Fund (NTCF)) to address urgent factors:

The COVID-19 pandemic had negative impacts on both companies, leading to financial losses, workforce issues, and operational challenges.
Extreme weather events like flooding and wildfires (which are increasing due to climate change) create safety and financial risks for both TRT and KRC. During the summer of 2022, KRC incurred additional operating costs by evacuating approximately 1 500 people.
Ageing equipment and infrastructure lead to more frequent breakdowns and delays as well as higher maintenance costs.

These kinds of factors can impede the ability of both railways to deliver services and threaten the long-term viability of the railways’ operations, particularly in the context of rising equipment costs and supply chain issues.

"We’re also looking to have contingency funds because there are situations out of our control, for example climate change.” – Interview participant

Evaluation team question: “What could be done to improve the challenges encountered by funding recipients?"

Interview participant: “Funding stability. Contingency funds, as is the case for NTCF.”

3.2.4 Challenges in monitoring key indicators and requirements

Finding 7: Several program indicators are not consistently tracked for both railways.

Challenges in assessing RPRP performance indicators include:

The limited reporting capacity of the recipients.
Indicators copied from the overarching Transportation Infrastructure Performance Information Profile (PIP) (T30) that are not tailored to the RPRP (e.g., “Percentage of capital projects delivered on time, on scope and on budget”). See discussion under Finding 4 for more details.
Certain indicators (not including the number of round trips made) were deemed not to be very useful or meaningful to collect by some program staff.
Challenges in collecting sensitive Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) information, particularly from passengers. For instance, only one GBA+ indicator out of three was measured in six years.
As observed in TC's Corporate Data Pathfinder, RPRP outcomes and indicators are not integrated into the Transportation Infrastructure PIP, as committed in the most recent RPRP funding document.

Table 3. Status of available indicators results
Funding recipients	Performance Below Target	Performance Meeting Target	Data Unavailable	Total
TRT	1	5	5	11
KRC	0	3	8	11

A total of 11 performance indicators were listed in the 2021 RPRP funding document (not including GBA+ indicators). For a complete list of indicator status, see tables 6 and 7 in Appendix B.

TRT: Out of the 6 indicators that evaluators were able to track, 5 met or exceeded their targets.

KRC: Even though there is no requirement to provide operational performance indicators to TC (because TC does not provide operational funding to KRC), the three available indicators met or exceeded performance targets.

3.2.5 Relationship with recipients

Finding 8: TC's relationship with recipients, particularly with TRT, has improved since the previous evaluation in 2018.

At the time of the previous evaluation of the RPRP in 2017-18, the relationship between TC and TRT was strained due to questions surrounding TRT's financial management. At the time, a compliance audit was conducted by an external consultant and recommendations were made to TC and TRT.

Current evaluation evidence suggests that TRT's financial reporting along with their relationship with TC has improved. TRT and TC have collaborated frequently over the past few years to discuss how to address previous recommendations. In general, the relationship is collaborative and more transparent than it was in the past.

“Since 2020, we have seen many improvements of the management and delivery of the program... because both of the recipients are collaborating with the department.” – Interview participant

“I think the relationship between TRT and TC, the one we have now it’s much better than it was at the beginning of the company from 2014-2018. So already here it helped a lot when negotiating 3 years ago.” – Interview participant

3.3 Program efficiency

Finding 9: The RPRP is delivered in an efficient manner as demonstrated by comparing the ratio of Operations and Maintenance costs (O&M) to the amount of contribution disbursements made.

A measure of efficiency, which has been used by some contribution programs at TC, is to calculate the ratio of O&M costs, which include Salaries and Other Operating Costs (OOC), to the value of contributions disbursed. As illustrated in Table 4, the ratio of O&M costs to the contributions disbursed ranged from a low of 0.60% to a high of 1.73% between 2017-18 and 2022-23.

The ratios in Table 4 increased to a high of 1.73% in 2021-22 and remained close to that level in 2022-23. The key reasons for this include the addition of a full-time equivalent (FTE) and hiring an external consultant in 2021-22, which increased the program’s salary and OOC expenditures. In 2022-23, the OOC includes the costs of travelling and conducting a site visit. Overall, the six-year ratio of total O&M funding to the total contributions disbursed was calculated at 1.06% (from 2017-18 to 2022-23).

Although no current departmental benchmark was identified by evaluators, having O&M spending be approximately 1% of all disbursements is deemed to be efficient and reasonable.

Table 4. RPRP proportion of salaries and non-salaries to contributions disbursements ($), 2017-18 to 2022-23
Type of Expenditure	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	Grand Total
Salary	55,833	57,231	60,512	60,512	146,714	146,714	527,516
OOC	17,757	12,512	11,200	11,200	90,160	21,840	232,989
Sub-Total	73,590	69,743	71,712	71,712	236,874	168,554	760,505
Contribution disbursements	10,030,000	11,690,000	11,200,000	11,130,00	13,730,000	14,150,000	71,930,000
% of Contribution	0.73%	0.60%	0.64%	0.64%	1.73%	1.19%	1.06%

Finding 10: Program staff reported that the team is adequately staffed to deliver the program.

The RPRP is adequately staffed to deliver and manage the program activities. The number of FTE employees working on delivering the RPRP has increased since 2017-18. In the case of the RPRP, counting FTE numbers is not straightforward, since staff split their time between other transfer payment programs, but overall, the proportion of staff working on the RPRP has increased since 2017-18.

Over the past five years, between 2018-19 to 2022-23, program staff have dedicated a significant proportion of their time preparing the required program renewal documents. The duration of RPRP funding has gone from a five-year cycle to a three-year cycle, requiring staff to prepare these documents more frequently.

In collaboration with TRT, by addressing the recommendations from previous compliance audits, the RPRP team has been able to make efficiency gains by only needing to review a sample of claims made by the railway. Previously (in 2017-18), RPRP staff thoroughly reviewed 100% of TRT's claims; in 2021-22, due to the improvements made to TRT's financial management, it was reported that the RPRP staff review about 10-20% of TRT's claims (which is comparable to the other transfer payment programs within the department).

4.0 Recommendation

The RPRP should refine and streamline their program outcomes and indicators, in collaboration with recipients, to ensure that it is feasible and useful to collect them.

5.0 Management Action Plan

Recommendation	Action	Office of Primary Interest	Target Date
The RPRP should refine and streamline their program outcomes and indicators, in collaboration with recipients, to ensure that it is feasible and useful to collect them.	Develop a new series of performance indicators for the RPRP renewal based on the Evaluation and Advisory Services (EAS) recommendation. Coordinate on new performance indicators with EAS for input/guidance. Collaborate with RPRP recipients to ensure the feasibility of indicators, and collection capacity. Streamline program outcomes in alignment with new performance indicators. Integrate new performance indicators into renewed agreements.	DG-TIP DG-TIP DG-TIP DG-TIP DG-TIP	All items are completed.

6.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Program and evaluation context
Appendix B: Effectiveness tables

6.1 Appendix A. Program and evaluation context

Line graph and data table depicting passenger trends for TRT and KRC from fiscal year 2017-18 to 2022-23. — Figure 7. Passenger trends over the last 6 years

Table 5. Evaluation matrix
Evaluation Questions	Indicators
Relevance: Is there a need for the RPRP? If so, to what extent is the program addressing the need?	Demonstrated rationale for federal funding to support two rail lines in remote communities (i.e., KRC in Manitoba and TRT in Quebec) Perception of stakeholders on the continued need for the program Exploration of alternative sources of funding (e.g., provincial funding programs, etc.)
Performance: To what extent has the RPRP achieved its expected outcomes? What are the challenges?	Service levels for remote passenger rail services meet the minimum requirement in the contribution agreements (e.g., 52 round trips per year) Compliance levels for monitoring and reporting claims as required in the contribution agreements (e.g., recipient audit results) Number and type of capital projects completed and the impacts/results that they enable Assessment of the achievement of expected outcomes (as defined in the most recent funding document) Alignment between program objectives and program outcomes Number of cancelled trips (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic, flooding, fires, equipment) Number of incidents and accidents on KRC and TRT routes (and VIA Rail)
Performance: To what extent have Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) and Official Languages considerations been incorporated into program operations and activities?	Evidence that the consultations are responsive to the needs of funding recipients (e.g., official languages, culturally sensitive, etc.) Demographic profile of remote communities, railway staff, and rail passengers (e.g., Indigenous and non-Indigenous, etc.)
Efficiency and Economy: To what extent is the RPRP designed and delivered in an efficient manner?	Administrative costs to deliver the program Process efficiencies (e.g., lean reviews, internal efficiency reviews, claims process) Optimization of inputs and outputs Funds leveraged from recipients and other stakeholders (e.g., provincial, financial institutions) Qualitative assessment of program efficiency and areas for improvement

6.2 Appendix B. Effectiveness tables

Table 6. Detailed assessment of RPRP performance indicator status
Indicator	Level	TRT measurement status	KRC measurement status
Percentage of expenses over revenue ratio	Short-term	Performance below target	Data unavailable
Number of round trips per year (as required in the contribution agreements)	Short-term	Performance meeting target	Performance meeting target
Percentage of train ticket prices increase compared to previous year	Med.-term 1	Performance meeting target	Performance meeting target
Percentage of round trips completed versus planned	Med.-term 1	Performance meeting target	Data unavailable
Number of passengers per year	Med.-term 2	Performance meeting target	Data unavailable
Average passenger load factor per year (number of passengers per available seats)	Med.-term 2	Data unavailable	Data unavailable
Percentage of departures with a delay of more than 15 minutes	Med.-term 2	Data unavailable	Data unavailable
Percentage of projects delivered on time, on scope and on budget	Med.-term 3	Data unavailable	Data unavailable
Payments are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreements with the recipients	Med.-term 4	Performance meeting target	Performance meeting target
Percentage reduction in passengers travel time from point to point according to the target duration objective, located on the portion of the railway owned by the recipient, as a result of track improvements	Long-term 1	Data unavailable	Data unavailable
Percentage of growth in ridership using the trend of the last five years	Long-term 2	Data unavailable	Data unavailable

Table 7. Detailed assessment of RPRP outcomes and indicators
Level	Outcome	Observation	Indicators	Observations
Short-term	Program recipients maintain a sufficient financial capacity to continue to provide remote passenger rail services between Sept-Iles and Schefferville in Quebec and The Pas and Pukatawagan in Manitoba	This financial capacity outcome is more relevant in the long term	Percentage of expenses over revenue ratio Number of round trips per year (as required in the contribution agreements)	This ratio fits better in the long term and requires clear parameters Does not measure the outcome
Med.-term 1	Remote communities in Quebec and Manitoba have reasonable access to the national transportation system via the passenger rail services	The outcome leans towards short-term, as providing “reasonable” access would be the first impact on the passengers	Percentage of train ticket prices increase compared to previous year Percentage of round trips completed versus planned	Lack of precision on the type of train tickets (e.g., round-trip tickets) Very similar to the short-term indicator above
Med.-term 2	Passenger rail services are improved and meet the needs of remote communities in Quebec and Manitoba	The second component “meeting the needs” of this outcome is broad	Number of passengers per year Average passenger load factor per year (number of passengers per available seats) Percentage of departures with a delay of more than 15 minutes	Doesn't seem to measure the outcome. The parameters (i.e., target) must be clear and established beforehand The target range is too wide. Need to consult recipients to ensure data availability The target range is too wide. Need to consult recipients to ensure data availability. Indicator statement could be rephrased for more positive reporting (e.g. less than 15 minutes)
Med.-term 3	Capital projects are implemented	N/A	Percentage of projects delivered on time, on scope and on budget	No clear data strategy to measure this indicator. RPRP Capital projects must be specified/categorized to facilitate indicator reporting
Med.-term 4	Crown legacy commitments are met	N/A	Payments are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreements with the recipients	This indicator looks more like an output than an outcome/result
Long-term 1	An efficient transport system by reducing travel time	N/A	Percentage reduction in passengers travel time from point to point according to the target duration objective, located on the portion of the railway owned by the recipient, as a result of track improvements	The indicator is effective but overly complex. Simplification is needed to enhance clarity and more precision in defining the target
Long-term 2	More people living in remote areas of Quebec and Manitoba will ride on these trains	N/A	Percentage of growth in ridership using the trend of the last five years	The target is not yet established

Language selection

WxT Language switcher