:
Thank you very much, Chair.
My name is David Jeanes. I'm the president of Transport 2000. I have provided a brief.
[Translation]
I apologize for the poor quality of the French version. It is complete, but it is not accurate.
[English]
I am going to start by summarizing what Transport 2000 is. Then I'll talk about the renewed interest in high-speed rail in Canada, some comparisons to other countries, incremental approaches that have been followed elsewhere, opportunities that we have missed in Canada, the relationship between high-speed rail and existing rail networks and urban public transit, and airlines and airports. If I have time, which I probably won't, there are some additional items included in the brief at the end.
First of all, Transport 2000 is a volunteer-based national research and advocacy organization. We've been around since 1976. We were founded in response to the government call for public input into the redesign of Canada's transcontinental passenger trains. Since 1976 we've broadened our scope to cover all public transport modes, particularly urban public transit and also airline passenger safety and consumer issues.
We're a federally incorporated non-profit registered charity. We have a board of directors across the country, from our regional organizations.
We've published research and participated in many conferences and studies on passenger rail, most of which you have seen in the mountain of paper during your inquiries here, and we've made submissions at most of the consultations over about a 30-year period. We have good working relationships with many of the organizations and witnesses you've heard from already in this hearing.
There is definitely a renewed interest in high-speed rail. People feel that finally the time is now. We've had a hiatus. Nothing has happened, really, since 1995, but there is an urgent need for us to join the rest of the developed world to exploit high-speed rail to meet our regional and national objectives.
From a position of leadership, with great potential and advanced technologies back in the 1970s, we have fallen so far behind that our passenger trains have, at best, half the world standard speed, and our industry is also missing opportunities. We're missing opportunities for the environmental and economic benefits of increasing the use of passenger train service to a level comparable to that in other industrialized countries.
We're overly dependent on a fossil fuel based transportation system with automobiles, trucks, and aviation, while other countries have heavily invested in electricity and renewable energies for transportation through their rail transportation networks.
A lot of people say we can't emulate other countries. When we compare Canada to other countries, it's often said that our distances are too great and our population density is too low for high-speed rail. I think this is not true, and there are some examples that are worth looking at.
Japan's first Shinkansen bullet train line in 1964 was 552 kilometres long. That's the same distance as Toronto to Montreal. By 1975 they had extended their Shinkansen line west from Tokyo to Akita, to 1,175 kilometres, which is five kilometres longer than the entire Quebec-Windsor rail distance. You have heard before that high-speed rail is being studied mainly for the 500-mile or 800-kilometre distances, but that's definitely not the case in the rest of the world. High-speed rail is proven at well over those distances.
People also think that high-speed rail stops only in the largest metropolises. This is also not the case. The Japanese bullet train, on that 552-kilometre Tokyo-Osaka route, had two important stops--Kyoto and Nagoya--but second-tier trains on the same double-track line served an additional 12 towns an average of only 48 kilometres apart. So you can build high-speed infrastructure, and you can have express trains serving the largest cities at very high speeds, but you can also design the network so that intermediate stops are possible. The Japanese did it, and other countries have done it.
In addition to that, the networks in Japan and France are not constrained to the new high-speed infrastructure. The trains actually branch out onto the conventional rail network to serve other cities. I mention two here--Yamagata and Akita in Japan. Also, these high-speed rail lines, although they are restricted to passenger trains, can accommodate trains of varying speeds. The Japanese, for example, were able to run trains of 210-kilometre-per-hour technology and of 300-kilometre-per-hour technology on the same line for a period of time while they were transitioning to higher-speed trains.
Likewise, even commuter trains can run on high-speed infrastructure. The MAX bi-level trains north of Tokyo are commuter trains just like GO Transit, except that they operate at 240 kilometres an hour or more.
Similarly, Britain is using Japanese commuter trains on its new High Speed 1 line out of St. Pancras station to provide commuter service extending out onto conventional lines in suburban Kent.
So we are talking, when we look at the rest of the world, about a very broad range of applications.
As regards the incremental approach, most countries have not started by building an entire system. They've built only the critical component of it. As I said, Japan started with 552 kilometres. France started with only 427 kilometres, which is just about the same as Ottawa to Toronto; but the TGV trains on that initial high-speed line actually covered 4,000 kilometres of route, serving many other cities, because the trains were designed so that they could get the time advantage out of Paris for a two-hour time saving on the high-speed segment but then continue to many other cities. This has been the case throughout the expansion of high-speed rail service.
Sweden was able to implement high-speed rail on existing tracks on a distance almost identical to Ottawa to Toronto. They even tried to sell the train to Canada. The X2000 train came over here and had a demonstration run here in Ottawa. We didn't buy it because it wasn't good enough to meet Canadian standards, but today in Sweden you can take 17 high-speed trains a day between Gothenburg and Stockholm. That technology was sold to China, where it became the genesis of China's high-speed rail network, which is now leading the world.
We've missed a number of technology opportunities. We were positioned in the 1960s with some of the best technology, manufacturing, research at the National Research Council, and speed records to lead the world in high-speed rail. We actually invented here the first really successful active-tilting train: our LRC. That's a technology that is now widely used in other countries for high-speed trains that perform on existing tracks, and yet we were the first with it. However, we failed to modernize our own rail network and we failed to exploit our advances. Therefore, when we buy high-speed rail, we're going to be constrained to buying foreign technology, even if we choose to buy it from a Canadian company.
You already heard from Ms. Borges of Transport Canada about the importance of integrating with existing rail networks. I won't go into detail on that, but the existing rail network and existing urban public transit must work well with high-speed rail. So must airports, because we see high-speed rail as a way of changing the balance of traffic so that short-haul air traffic shifts to rail, but rail also brings more long-haul traffic to the airports in an efficient way. It's a symbiotic relationship.
We see it working in Europe. Air France is considering running trains, in competition with Eurostar, to Britain. The airlines are issuing rail tickets for journeys such as Paris–Geneva or Paris–Brussels, because that's a more efficient way to move people on those components of their journeys.
Now is the time to move forward in updating the 1995 studies. This is the best opportunity for us to move forward to make the kind of strategic investment that really only the participation of government can bring to fruition. The rest of the world has shown the importance of doing this. France is buying its way out of recession with high-speed trains, according to the cover of this month's International Railway Journal, and we should be doing the same.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the committee on such an important issue.
I am here today representing the National Airlines Council of Canada, but I also work for one of that organization's members, Air Canada, and so some of my comments will relate to that experience in particular.
[English]
Let me at the outset commend the committee for taking the initiative to conduct this study. Certainly Canada's transportation infrastructure can and should be viewed as a powerful engine for economic development, and as such, some consideration of using public funds to build or support that infrastructure isn't inappropriate. So from the start, let me say that I'm not here to condemn high-speed rail or to oppose any idea simply for the sake of opposing it.
[Translation]
However, since a transportation mode that is developed and paid for out of public funds is not in itself a viable transportation industry, we believe we must find a balance among the various modes of transportation. We also believe that commercial air carriers' employees and passengers must be taken into consideration as well.
[English]
Consider the following. In 2008, Air Canada alone paid over $130 million to Nav Canada for their services. Excluding Jazz, we paid over $320 million in landing fees. Excluding Jazz again, we paid another $185 million in terminal assessments, and we collected directly from our passengers over $134 million to pay the air travellers security charge. We should also consider the over $300 million the Government of Canada collects in airport rent, for which no value is returned to the transport system, and the airport improvement fees passengers pay at Canadian facilities, which range from $7 to $40, with most being between $15 and $25, depending on the facility.
As you can see, the direction of aviation policy in Canada has enthusiastically embraced the user-pay model for air travel, so enthusiastically that the World Economic Forum ranks Canada a disappointing 122 out of 130 countries in terms of competitiveness on aviation fees and taxes. So we in aviation, who are firmly stuck in a user-pay model, become, I think understandably, concerned as an industry when we hear talk of a need for billions of dollars in public funds to be allocated to guarantee a reasonable return for the operator of a service like high-speed rail, against which we would be called to compete directly in several key markets.
Bluntly, we can't compete with an entity backed by the crown, and no private enterprise or business should be asked to do so. Key parts of our network would likely be jeopardized as a result.
[Translation]
The carriers who belong to the National Airlines Council of Canada currently employ over 43,900 people and carried over 58 million passengers last year, and this generated direct and indirect economic benefits in Canada amounting to several billion dollars.
[English]
We would enthusiastically welcome a discussion about how we can grow our business, employ more Canadians, and bring more visitors to Canada by reducing the competitive disadvantage we currently face as a result of having to pass the full cost of aviation infrastructure directly to our passengers. We would also be greatly troubled if public investment were used to create a modal disparity between air and rail, threatening the health of our companies and the jobs of our employees.
I will turn it over to my colleague from WestJet.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Mike McNaney. I'm the VP of regulatory affairs at WestJet. I'm appearing today under the NAC banner. We just thought, because this is an east and west discussion, it might be useful if two of our members were here. And indeed, it's a banner day in Canadian aviation, because WestJet agrees with everything Air Canada just said—and that has never happened before.
I will be very brief. As Joe said, we're not here to condemn or oppose high-speed rail, but we do have concerns about the policy environment in which it would operate.
As Joe noted, in the airline industry in Canada we are ostensibly 100% user-pay. So in 2008, WestJet paid $56 million in security taxes, $128 million in navigational fees, $155 million in airport improvement fees, and $183 million in airport landing and facilities fees. We were fortunate enough last year to be one of the few air carriers in North America to turn a profit. When you take out all the operational costs and all the charges and fees, etc., our profit came out to approximately $13 a passenger. We're actually quite proud of that margin, but as you can see, it is a fairly tight margin. That's just the nature of the industry and the nature of the business.
We are not arguing that the various fees and charges we pay should be eliminated or be reduced to zero. The user must pay. But over the years in Canada, this user-pay principle has taken on a life of its own, and we face continuing increases in these fees and charges. And it's because of these cost realities, as Joe noted, that when we hear the notion of billions of dollars of public money for high-speed rail—and we understand there have been no decisions made as to what percentages will be between private and public.... Nonetheless, when we hear these discussions, I guess we suffer from a little bit of modal envy—which is the best way I can phrase it—that in the name of competitiveness and public investment in infrastructure, another form of transportation will have a very different environment in which to operate.
To quickly conclude, Mr. Chairman, it isn't the competitive aspect that has us concerned; it's the policy environment and cost environment under which this competition may present itself to the air carriers.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chairman, with me today is Mr. Stuart Kendrick from Greyhound Canada. He is their senior vice-president and he's also treasurer of the Canadian Bus Association.
I'm the president of the Canadian Bus Association and the president of Groupe Orléans Express, based in Montreal, which operates intercity lines throughout the eastern provinces of Canada.
On behalf of the Canadian Bus Association, I first want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to give you our views on high-speed rail and whether and how such a transportation system should be introduced in Canada.
First, it would seem appropriate to give you a word or two about who we are. We represent the major scheduled intercity bus carriers in Canada, and our members carry upwards of 75% of all scheduled bus passenger trips across Canada, equating to approximately 10 million bus passenger trips annually. We are an advocacy organization, in the sense that our raison d'être is to speak and act on behalf of our members on all matters pertaining to public policy that impact on us and our customers, the travelling public.
[Translation]
The scheduled bus industry has two central messages that it wishes to impart to the Committee today.
First, any future funding commitment of taxpayer monies to a high-speed rail system must be fair and should not be used to create a more uneven playing field among completing passenger modes. In particular, there must be a meaningful fare gap between subsidized high-speed rail travel and unsubsidized bus travel. Government should not grant billions in taxpayer subsidies in order to reduce rail trip times by 50% between cities and then allow the rail operator to charge passenger fares at the same levels as unsubsidized private sector bus operators operating on the same city-pairs. In other words, high-speed rail passenger fares must be set at levels that are reasonably compensatory in relation to costs.
[English]
The underlying imperative here is that we must have a seamless transportation system that serves all segments of the travelling public. That means that the public policy environment that Parliament creates must accommodate air, rail, and buses because each of these modes responds to the needs of one segment or another of our population. Policies that disadvantage one mode at the expense of another only have the effect of disadvantaging the travelling public. If, for example, rail is publicly subsidized in high-density population corridors to the extent that the bus mode cannot compete, who will carry passengers to and from communities where rail does not go?
It seems self-evident to us that, given our geography and our demography, we need a policy framework that enables a cost-effective but integrated transportation system that does its best to meet everyone's needs.
If government decides to proceed with high-speed rail, some CBA members and their respective ownerships will actively seek the opportunity to join the public-private consortium. Our shareholders, Greyhound and Orléans Express, are major players in the world of transportation in Europe and North America, and through them, we have extensive experience in operating both conventional and high-speed rail systems. Of even greater importance, we have experience in operating multi-modal transportation systems that integrate rail with bus and with transit.
Our two respective bus companies are owned by two of the largest transportation conglomerates in the world. Greyhound Canada is 100% owned by FirstGroup plc of Scotland. To provide an indication of comparative size, the annual passenger service revenues of FirstGroup exceed $10 billion Canadian and are four times greater than those of Air Canada. FirstGroup has 2.5 billion passenger trips annually and has some 136,000 employees.
[Translation]
Orléans Express is 75% owned by Keolis of France, the national passenger rail operator in France, which is in turn partly owned by SNCF and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. The annual passenger services revenues of Keolis exceed $5 billion Canadian and are two times greater than those of Air Canada. Keolis transports 2 billion passengers annually and has some 39,000 employees.
FirstGroup and Keolis are each involved in operating intercity rail networks, transit networks, and intercity bus networks. We know the problems, we know how to solve them, and our parent companies each have the financial resources to participate in major public-private partnerships. Indeed, both ownership groups have gained already amassed considerable experience with 3-P consortia in other countries.
We appreciate that the federal provincial feasibility study now underway for high-speed rail still has a number of issues to address before the findings of the 1995 feasibility study can be updated. Demand forecasts need to be recast. Newly available technology must be analyzed, with a particular view to Canadian climate concerns. Cost estimates need to be reassessed. Some form of a preliminary environmental assessment must be performed.
If the results of this current study are deemed to be sufficiently positive by the three governments, this will then trigger detailed technical studies that will require time and money to complete.
Final routings for a selected technology have to be decided together with the associated construction and land assembly costs. As required by law, a full-blown environmental assessment study must be performed according to these final routings. The firm costs of the technology chosen, the resulting costs of the track-bed that must be laid, and the attendant infrastructure costs will all be established.
The ridership demand forecast can then be completed after the precise trip times and the fares to be paid by high-speed rail passengers have been specified.
[English]
High-speed rail trip times will depend upon which technology is chosen, upon which routing is chosen, and upon the number of intermediate stops, if any, along the way. Ticket prices to be paid by high-speed rail passengers will depend on ridership, the final costs established in the detailed engineering studies, and on how much the capital and any subsequent operating cost shortfalls have to be captured by taxpayer subsidies.
Once this preparatory work has been completed, each of the three governments will then be in a position to commit funding over the project's lifetime, assuming they can reach agreement on their respective funding shares after the private sector funding commitment has been established. Once these agreements have been reached, physical construction of a high-speed rail system would then commence.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that considering the role of the Canadian intercity bus industry and moving Canadians from all regions of the country, we will vigorously oppose the introduction of a high-speed rail system in Canada that does not compete fairly with other modal passenger carriers. However, given the experience that two of our members have in operating integrated passenger transportation systems in other countries, we understand how it is possible to design sophisticated passenger transportation systems that serve the public interest, while making it possible for private sector operators to participate and to thrive. If the committee recommends a public-private partnership to operate such a system, I think you will find a willing partner within the ranks of the Canadian Bus Association.
Thank you. We'll be very happy to answer your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming to share your views with us.
As a committee, we specifically wanted to meet with all of you because we wanted to get as broad a perspective as possible on the views associated with high-speed train travel introduction in the country. Allow me, for a moment, to simply say that all of you have said something that I think everybody around the table has appreciated for some time--and I'm glad you came here to reiterate that--that is, that the introduction of a high-speed rail system should be considered as part of a multi-modal passenger system throughout the country. Specifically, you have to start somewhere, and this committee has looked at two areas that really engage three provinces, as a start.
The committee, I think so far, has been interested in the concept of ensuring that there is a multi-modal approach to any kind of an introduction, but we're not the ones conducting the feasibility study. Our questions are a little bit more specific.
I'm wondering if I can go beyond saying thank you, Mr. Jeanes, for introducing the concept of economic development and technological innovation. If I can come back to you in a minute, I will. I just want to see if I can maximize the seven minutes. It's an issue that has not been discussed at great length with us for some time, in part because people have different interests—all legitimate, but they are different.
With the airline representatives, I wonder if, when we consider establishing an infrastructure in order to allow for the operation by a private interest, it is your estimation that the user-pay principle has already taken into consideration all the public investments in airports, in the regulatory environment, and in the appropriate supervision that must accompany that business prior to your getting a plane off the ground.
:
I will speak briefly just for WestJet. They're a lot bigger on Montreal-Toronto. We're trying, but they're still a lot bigger on Montreal-Toronto. For Montreal-Toronto, it's about also six or seven flights a day. So again, that's 500,000 or 600,000 seats per annum.
There would be two impacts. There will be some dislocation of guests, or customers, however you want to phrase it, from the competition. That will happen. The other thing is, depending on what the split is in terms of public investment, the best way I can phrase it is that we continue to argue the need for investment in our sector as opposed to taking money out.
Joe mentioned that there are better and smarter ways to do it. For example, in the U.S., their excise tax on jet fuel actually goes into paying the FAA. Our excise tax on jet fuel is twice the amount theirs is, and it goes into general coffers.
I have great concern that as the years go by, as we try to fight for greater investment, we're not going to get it, and the response will be that the budget is fairly tapped out because we're putting $1 billion this year, or $2 billion next year, in the construction or the operation of these lines, whatever the case may be.
So there are two dislocations. There's the actual dislocation from a competitive perspective, and then there's the ongoing one. We know right now that the organizations that provide us with the services we're currently being charged for are seeing drops in traffic numbers because people are flying less. Their fixed infrastructure means they're probably going to be coming back to us with demands for increased costs, which is a tax increase at the absolute worst time that we can deal with it.
My initial observation is that the strength of the free enterprise system is pretty evident. Companies that are in the business will adapt. You certainly have lots of lead time with the high-speed rail system. It will take quite a long time to develop this system, if it ever gets developed. I know airlines can reassign planes in a fairly efficient manner. There's a lot of market out there, and if you don't find a market in one place, I'm sure you'll find it in another. It certainly has been my experience.
I noticed you have talked about airports, and a lot of the problems with the airline industry stem from airport problems. I was in Washington last week at the congressional aviation hearings and I met a gentlemen by the name of James Crites, who is executive vice-president of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. He had some very interesting observations and interesting things that he has had success getting adopted in the United States right now to solve some of the problems there with tarmac delays and other issues.
I think he observed that airports are being turned into shopping malls in a lot of cases. These are huge developments, when not as much attention as there should be is paid to the way the flights integrate with the way the airport runs. Some computer system is being developed in the States right now--I think it's still being worked on, but it has four or five components--to build an integrated system so you don't have these bottlenecks.
Another thing he has done—and the Atlanta airport has done this as well—is to buy cobuses. I don't know whether you have cobuses in Canada, but you're familiar with what they are. I've seen them in Heathrow Airport in Europe, where you don't get on the plane through a jetway anymore. The bus takes you out to the plane. That has eliminated a lot of the problem with tarmac delays in Atlanta airport, Dallas/Fort Worth, and others.
He's also built a ramp, he claims, where the planes just drive up to the ramp and people get off. I don't know how this thing works, but certainly I would recommend that we all look into this whole situation because he seems to be making headway in the United States, as far as making airports more efficient is concerned. That's part of our problem here. The big part of our problem is making people happy to travel.
There wouldn't be a big demand for high-speed rail if people weren't spending so much time getting to the airports, fighting their way onto the planes, and then having to fight their way off the planes. I think we need a more efficient system all the way around. Perhaps then we could look at reducing some of these fees. I agree the fees are atrocious, and these airports are really developing into big Taj Mahals by the looks of it, with the shopping mall aspects to them. I don't think the passenger really needs or wants something like that.
I'm asking you to comment on these things, if you would.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.
I think this is a really good study for the committee to be undertaking right now, especially considering that we do have a joint study going on between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the Government of Canada.
I just have a couple of questions.
A couple of people made the point that it's really tough to compete with an entity backed by the crown. I would actually concur with that. Certainly, Jim Devlin of Coach Canada in Peterborough has talked to me many times about how they sometimes have a hard time competing with VIA Rail in VIA's core, because sometimes VIA will put on a special that Coach Canada can't compete with on a profitable level. I do believe it's inherently unfair when we are actually subsidizing one industry to the harm of another. I know the airlines may take issue with that, but airports wouldn't be built if governments didn't build them, and everybody operates on infrastructure that's built by the government.
That said, here's my question. Can a high-speed rail system run cash positive? That's what we're talking about. Could you, as a P3, run cash positive? For example, could Greyhound operate a high-speed rail system? It has to be integrated. I think this is something that people need to understand for any kind of transportation system, and I don't care if it's air, buses, or subways.
That's one of the major problems at Pearson. We don't have a good integrated transit solution around Pearson. I'd be happy to talk to Mr. Galimberti about that. But in your opinion, could you run this cash positive if the infrastructure is built?
:
Honoured members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is William Brehl. I'm the president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference maintenance of way employees division. Our division represents all of the men and women who build, inspect, and maintain the track, bridges, and structures at CP Rail and over two dozen short lines. No one knows building rail and keeping it safe better than our people. We're the people Pierre Berton wrote about and Gordon Lightfoot sang about.
I want to thank you for allowing me a few minutes to speak to you concerning Teamsters Canada's position on high-speed rail. We believe in both the idea and the reality of high-speed rail. We can't help but see this as an excellent direction for transportation in Canada, coming at an opportune time. This will benefit Canadians for generations to come, not only with the employment that is tied to the construction and maintenance, but also with the infrastructure change itself.
The initial effect of high-speed rail will be the creation of thousands of new jobs needed to construct the system. In the 1991 Ontario/Quebec Rapid Train Task Force final report, it's estimated that, and I quote: “The construction phase of the HSR project will generate an estimated 45,000 person years for the 200 KPH option and 127,000 person years for the 300 kilometre per hour option.”
As you're all aware, the unemployment rate in this country is at 8%. CP Rail alone has seen over 2,500 unionized railway employees laid off since last December. Since we are in the midst of a recession, now is the time to invest in the country's future, creating jobs and establishing a lasting and fully functional legacy.
Teamsters Canada represents well over half of all unionized railway employees in this country. As an organization that represents the interests of thousands of highly skilled railway workers, we naturally welcome any opportunity to increase and broaden Canada's commitment to rail transportation in a safe and productive manner. High-speed rail, if handled properly, could very well be one such opportunity, and consequently we would support it. We not only view HSR as a project that could be good for our membership, but we also view it in its broader context as an infrastructure development project that would be deeply beneficial to all Canadians for many generations to come.
Transportation is the backbone of our economy, and the existence of an HSR line that, in effect, brings Canada's largest population centres closer together can only help to ensure that Canadian prosperity continues to grow. In the short term, a project the size of HSR will provide a much-needed boost to our current slacking economy. It will have an extremely healthy effect on the lives of all working men and women. In the longer term, as the 21st century unfolds, Canada will follow the lead of and experience the same kinds of positive results as many other countries that have implemented HSR systems. Our dependence on oil is not only creating a stranglehold on our economy, but the use of fossil fuels as a transportation energy source could very well be destroying our planet. According to the Earth Policy Institute, three-quarters of the carbon emissions from human activities are due to the combustion of fossil fuels, due in large part to the millions of automobiles packed on our highway.
Environmentally, rail is the friendliest means of land mass transport that there is. Not only will an HSR system greatly reduce the need for fossil fuels as a transportation energy source, it will also, as stated in the Martin Prosperity Institute February 2009 paper on infrastructure, go a long way to help meeting our short-term greenhouse gas emission targets, possibly in the area of 40% of Ontario's greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020. Linking our urban regions with a high-speed rail network will contribute to providing relief from the major congestion of our roads and thoroughfares, allowing for expanded residential advantages and enhancing our quality of life.
In closing, let me say again that as the nation's premier transportation union, Teamsters Canada is better placed than almost any other stakeholder to contribute in a deep and meaningful way to the success of the high-speed rail project. No one knows track and rail infrastructure better than we do. We alone have had the honour and the responsibility of renewing and maintaining CP Rail's tracks and bridges ever since the last spike was driven in Craigellachie, B.C., in 1885. We view the HSR initiative as a continuation of that great tradition, and we are therefore committed to working with all of our partners in the rail industry, whether labour, company, or government, to ensure that the initiative is handled properly, receives approval, and moves forward.
Thank you.
:
From the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to express our views on high-speed rail transportation in Canada.
The TCRC is a branch of Teamsters Canada that represents 12,000 running trades employees in Canada, including locomotive engineers, conductors, train persons, yard persons, rail traffic controllers, and yard masters at CN, CP, VIA Rail, and many of the short line railways. We believe the time is right to evaluate high-speed rail in the present and for the future. Large-scale infrastructure projects, such as the movement from slower-speed trains of 100 miles an hour or less to high-speed and very high-speed rail trains of up to 300 kilometres, have the capacity to propel change within the areas that are served by such trains. For example, the distance between cities served by high-speed rail becomes substantially less when times travelled are compared. This reduction in time travel will make it feasible to live farther from work in kilometres travelled but closer in time travelled.
We are in agreement with moving toward high-speed rail at this time for several reasons. The first is that a project of this size takes time, and the sooner it is started, the less expensive it will probably be. If studies and environmental assessments and decisions can be made now and in the near future, this will save time and money when compared with putting off plans to a later date. The primary factors are the availability and cost of land, materials, and labour, with land being the most critical component of the three. If left to some future date, land may well not be available, especially in and around urban areas.
At present, land is available in the Quebec City-Windsor-Ottawa corridor as well as in the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. Therefore, we applaud the committee's decision to explore high-speed rail in Canada at this time. As noted earlier, if the decision to move forward toward high-speed and very high-speed rail is made soon, it will take a number of years before high-speed rail becomes a reality. In the meantime, we suggest that some thought be given to expanding and improving the 100-miles-an-hour VIA rail service in all of the Quebec City-Windsor-Ottawa corridor. We have been informed that VIA has P42 engines capable of operating at 125 miles an hour, but only on track that would allow this speed. However, it may be feasible to get the speed up to 100 miles an hour in a much shorter time, and this would lead us to high-speed rail if it were decided that high-speed rail was feasible in this corridor.
Some thought should also be given to improving VIA's transcontinental and shorter routes, which, along with urban routes, could serve as feeder lines to a high-speed rail system. Some thought should also be given to expanding to transcontinental lines. Although there are numerous studies and articles on the subject of high-speed rail in Canada, we've only included two with our presentation here.
We would like to make reference to an article by Mr. Monte Paulsen. Mr. Paulsen is of the opinion that high-speed rail corridors are more viable in densely populated areas of the country, which could support the large investments required for high-speed rail infrastructure. In addition to this, he suggests Canadian high-speed rail corridors could hook up with U.S. HSR corridors, making them more viable. The full article is very interesting and certainly worth reading. I brought these two with me and I'll leave them with you today. Unfortunately, we didn't submit our brief in time for it to be provided to the committee.
The second document is a paper from the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto. Entitled “Infrastructure and the Economy: Future directions for Ontario”, this paper applies specifically to Ontario, but much of the information could also apply to other urban centres such as Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver. Page 14 of this document states that:
...the second limitation is that large-scale public spending on infrastructure has a potential to crowd out or compete for resources for construction by the private sector. This point is only valid, however, during a thriving economy. Indeed a good time to make massive investments in new infrastructure projects is during a recession. History shows that many great infrastructure developments were make-work projects during times of depression. Many of the construction projects under the Roosevelt's New Deal of the 1930s were good examples. Similarly during the last significant recession in Ontario in the early 1990s, many road construction projects were instigated under the Canada Infrastructure Works Program.
The purpose of such spending is to stimulate the economy—and this is aided by multiplier effects, which we count as a second form of economic impact...Multiplier effects include not only increased demand in the sectors producing construction materials, but also wider effects throughout the economy at large; for example, output will increase in the retail sector due to increased spending by construction workers. But of course, multiplier effects occur with any form of government spending, or for that matter private spending, in any economy. Moreover, multiplier effects are typically a short-term phenomena. Perhaps the more important question to ask is: What are the long-term economic effects of large scale infrastructure investments?
The first potential long-term effect of infrastructure investment is increased productivity. Connections between infrastructure and the productivity of economies are well recognized. Transportation infrastructure impacts economic growth by increasing the size of markets. Transportation provides accessibility between consumers, producers, workers and suppliers, leading to increases in productivity, typically through economies of scale. Some researchers have established empirical models relating infrastructure to economic growth, although their explanatory power is limited. ... With many different types and scales of markets, different varieties of products and services, and various complementary and competing transportation modes, deciphering the economic impacts of transportation is complex. ... Nevertheless, there is at least some basic understanding of the structure of the causal relationships between infrastructure investment and economic development.
Further on, at the top of page 18, this document also states:
A future in which current levels of automobile use are simply replicated by electric vehicles is, however, undesirable on economic grounds. Current levels of automobile use in Ontario are excessive. Level of congestion are so high, e.g., currently costing the GTHA economy $2.7 billion per year (Metrolinx), that the Province plans substantial new investment in public transportation systems. The economic effects of designing highly automobile dependent cities is decreasing productivity and worrying decreases in household savings rates due to overconsumption.
A more desirable future for Ontario would see her urban regions linked by a high-speed rail network. If appropriately supported by new local transit systems, such as proposed by Metrolinx for the GTHA, then higher levels of connectivity and safer, healthier movement of people will create a new economy. This vision of infrastructure for the creative age needs fundamental changes in land-use planning, with concentration of people and employment around mobility hubs. If transformation of land-use can be achieved--and this remains a key challenge--then reconstruction of the creative city can be expected to attract high levels of private sector investment. A high-speed rail network knitting Ontario's cities together could revolutionize the Province's role within the continental and global economic systems.
The construction of high-speed rail and transformation to plug-in electric vehicles will go a long way to helping Ontario meet its short-term GHG reduction targets. If implemented by 2020, the two scenarios would reduce GHG emissions by about 10-15 million Mt e CO2. Assuming that this is done in addition to the OPA's current integrated systems plan, and the GTHA regional transportation plan, then over 40% of Ontario's GHG reduction target for 2020 would be achieved.
In conclusion, high-speed rail would be competing directly with air and automobile travel. On a permanent basis, if travel to and from airports is added, high-speed rail could be equal to air and faster than automobile travel. If you also consider the added freedom to work, use a personal phone, and read in comfort, all the while conserving precious energy resources, then at the very least high-speed rail deserves further study. Teamsters Canada will assist in this endeavour in any way we can.
We thank you again for the opportunity to present our views here today.
Thank you very much.
It's a pleasure to be here on behalf of the City of London to speak on the subject of high-speed rail.
[Translation]
It is a great pleasure to be here with you today.
[English]
I would like to speak with you today about London's perspective on high-speed rail. Unfortunately, I am able to address your questions in English only.
I would like to begin with a short introduction to the city of London. We're a regional centre in southwest Ontario. We're Canada's 10th largest urban area, with a population of over 350,000. We're located midway between Windsor and Toronto and we sit at the heart of Ontario and Canada's transportation corridors to the United States. With more than 50% of Canada's trade moving through London by road, rail and air, we have an opportunity to build upon this natural advantage and become an important transportation gateway.
This year MoneySense magazine ranked London as one of the best places to live in Canada, 11th out of 154 communities across the country. We boast a high quality of life and we have a well-educated, highly skilled, diverse, and globally connected community.
We're fortunate to have a number of institutions in our community. We have nationally recognized institutions such as the University of Western Ontario, including the Richard Ivey School of Business, recognized professional schools, teaching hospitals, and internationally recognized research institutions. We're also home to Fanshawe College, the third largest community college in Ontario. It offers the largest number of co-ops of any community college in Canada and this week received almost $16 million in funding for its Centre for Applied Transportation Technologies as part of the joint federal-provincial knowledge infrastructure program. All of these institutions offer strong research and development training and opportunities.
London and southwest Ontario have many significant economic advantages. Before the onset of the current recession, we enjoyed a thriving and diverse manufacturing sector, a rich agricultural base and clusters of world-renowned education and health institutions as well as a network of robust urban and rural communities throughout our region.
London is a logical link in the high-speed rail corridor, because we are home to public and private sector organizations with connections throughout the Quebec City to Windsor corridor, including national and international corporations such as TD Canada Trust, 3M Canada, Pacific & Western Bank, and London Life Insurance Company.
London City Council and its business community have endorsed high-speed rail service from Windsor to Quebec City and submit that, given London's regional significance, there must be a stop in London.
We applaud the governments of Canada, Ontario, and Quebec for launching an update of the feasibility studies done in the 1990s.
London has the fourth busiest VIA Rail station in the country. We used to be the third busiest. We provide easy connections to both urban and rural communities, including eight trains daily to and from Toronto with links to Sarnia and Windsor. While we value this service, it remains far from ideal when compared with the speed and frequency of European or Asian train services and it makes daily commuting more difficult than it needs to be.
London City Council has this week confirmed that London will participate with several other corridor cities in a socio-economic study of the impact of high-speed rail on our community and the other communities on the corridor. Our city, the London Economic Development Corporation, and High Speed Rail Canada are, in fact, commencing a public symposium in London on the benefits of high-speed rail.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM, has long supported high-speed rail and recognizes the potential contribution to the long-term competitiveness of Canada's economic infrastructure.
The Lawrence National Centre for Policy and Management at London's prestigious Richard Ivey School of Business, led by Dianne Cunningham, held a transportation policy conference in March 2008 with a variety of senior government officials, experts, and a range of private sector companies to inform policy-makers on the benefits of the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway and trade corridor and the importance of high-speed rail.
The one-day living zone concept was proposed at that conference, a concept whereby individuals can live and commute on a daily basis within a 400-kilometre distance. Participants supported the creation of a process to evaluate who would be part of a high-speed rail corridor and agreed that high-speed rail would increase economic opportunities, enhance quality of life, reduce pressure of mounting population within major cities, promote less use of private vehicles, help smaller cities to grow, and would lead to the removal of passenger trains from current track, leaving them dedicated to a more efficient flow of freight traffic.
London happens to be a member of the Southwest Economic Alliance, or SWEA, which represents the economic interests of 2.5 million people in southwest Ontario. SWEA has identified high-speed rail and rail infrastructure in southwestern Ontario as a top priority.
Now, how could high-speed rail help London and southwestern Ontario? Well, recently London City Council endorsed an economic strategy to further develop London as a trade and transportation hub. The advent of high-speed rail service would strengthen the London and southwestern Ontario economy and open new opportunities for both retention and expansion of economic opportunities in London and the surrounding region. We're strategically located on the Highway 401 corridor near its junction with Highways 402 and 403 and connections to Sarnia and Windsor and the borders beyond.
High-speed rail would relieve congestion on our highways, particularly those around the Greater Toronto Area, reducing the need for highway expansion and leading to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in air quality. A high-speed rail service between Windsor and Quebec City would enhance mobility of labour, not just in southwestern Ontario but throughout southern Ontario and Quebec. It would stimulate tourism, open up new markets for trade and investment, and create new high-skill construction jobs.
As was pointed out by the deputy minister to this committee last week, European studies show high-speed rail has the potential to create economic development opportunities for smaller communities, not just larger ones. It will contribute to Canada's global competitiveness. High-speed rail has also proven to be the safest and most reliable form of travel.
With respect to demand, according to Stats Can, there are more than 2,000 daily commutes from London to the GTA. Last month VIA Rail reported almost 35,000 passenger on-offs at our VIA station in our city. We have a potential catchment area around London of over one million people. We welcome the demand studies that are being conducted, and we have just endorsed our participation in similar studies. We favour implementing all sections of high-speed rail service between Windsor and Quebec City in order to amplify and maximize the overall benefits, because we believe the complete corridor will be greater than the sum of its parts.
In summary, we favour high-speed rail rather than higher-speed rail. We favour full implementation of high-speed rail service along the entire corridor rather than a phased approach. We urge the governments of Canada, Quebec, and Ontario to consider the environmental benefit as well as the full socio-economic impact of high-speed rail on the provincial, regional, and, in particular, our local economies in our communities.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your questions.
:
I can answer that. Thank you very much.
Merci beaucoup.
I think one of the ways to respond to that...as I've said before this committee, and a lot of people ask, how can the Teamsters do it? Because we represent rail, we represent road, we're the biggest player in small parcels, freight forwarding, we're in the air world, we're at the ports, and we're even in buses now too, or coming. We don't view it as a zero-sum game. We think it's a win-win situation. It has been for the Teamsters.
From the companies' side, they're called integrators. I'll give you UPS as an example. A quarter of a million Teamsters work at UPS. They have the largest fleet of trucks, they have dedicated trains, they have their own ships, and they're the fifth largest airline in the world--wall-to-wall Teamsters. So we don't view it as a negative; we view it as a positive. We think it's a win-win situation.
The gentleman from the busing industry was talking about the integration package. We think it's a growth industry. I couldn't agree more that in regard to Peterboro, London, and places like that, through Quebec City and up the north shore, it's just a wonderful way to expand and have growth. Every time you put these types of vehicles in, with the boom that occurs around stations, the boom that occurs, as you know, just from GO trains, etc., it's worth it.