:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, members of the standing committee, and thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I assure you my remarks are very short, so that we'll have time for dialogue.
With me are my colleagues--you have just introduced them--Gerry Kolaitis and André Gravelle, both of whom are quite familiar with the high-speed file and whom I will call on later during the question period.
The future of Canada's national passenger rail service and the role that high-speed rail might play in the future are very important issues. Public interest in these issues is high, reflected in the study now under way by the Governments of Canada, Quebec, and Ontario to update feasibility studies for high-speed rail in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, and by the recent coverage of a possible link between Calgary and Edmonton.
[Translation]
VIA welcomes this interest. We have made our expertise in this area available for the study.
We also welcome the opportunity to provide any information, expertise and resources that will help this committee as it conducts hearings on high-speed rail.
I would like to use these opening remarks to provide a brief overview of the existing passenger rail network, what VIA is doing today, and how that fits in with any future developments that might include high-speed rail service.
[English]
As you know, VIA operates the national passenger service on behalf of the Government of Canada. We deliver an efficient, reliable, environmentally sustainable service. Our responsibility is to do so in a financially responsible manner, ensuring the best possible service to Canadians and the best management of the assets and resources invested in passenger rail.
We serve communities large and small, from the Atlantic to the Pacific and north to Hudson Bay. We operate 500 trains per week, including 429 in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. Our transcontinental service spans the distance between Toronto and Vancouver and between Montreal and Halifax. Our remote and regional services connect many rural and northern communities. In some places, we offer the only transportation option.
Our current network of services was established in 1990. Since that time, effective management and rigorous cost controls have achieved significant growth in passenger rail while improving service quality and reducing costs to the taxpayer.
For example, we have reduced reliance on government operating funding by 48%, or approximately $200 million per year; increased revenues by 110%; increased passengers by 33%; and increased our cost recovery by 102%.
[Translation]
This is a consistent record of continuous improvement over almost 20 years. It is a record we have maintained even in recent times, which have been challenging for the entire transportation industry.
In 2008, VIA increased revenues for the fifth consecutive year, with a 5% increase over 2007. And we set a new record for ridership, carrying 4.6 million passengers. VIA's performance reflects our success in building an organization, and a growing network of services, around our core strength in passenger transportation: delivering excellent customer service. We continuously sharpen our ability to design and deliver a service that matches and responds to the needs of our customers.
[English]
From maintenance and train operations to marketing to developing leading-edge customer relationship tools and leading-edge technologies, all aspects of our business are integrated around our single core focus on customer service.
This expertise is recognized internationally. Studies looking at passenger rail operations around the world have ranked VIA Rail above average on key operational measures. Other countries and railroads seek our advice on all aspects of passenger rail operations. We are currently working in partnership with France's SNCF to market and deliver our expertise worldwide.
Here at home, the Government of Canada gave a major vote of confidence in the future of passenger rail in this country and in VIA's ability to deliver results. In 2007 this current government announced a five-year, $516-million capital investment to strengthen passenger rail services across the country and to ensure that service remains both cost-effective and sustainable for the future.
With the 2009 federal budget, VIA received an additional $407 million for capital projects, bringing the current investment program to a total of $923 million. The investment benefits all parts of our national network--vital infrastructure improvements in the central corridor; upgrading locomotives and passenger cars that will be used throughout the system; and improving stations across the country to meet customer expectations for safety, comfort, and convenience. This investment allows us to continue moving forward, laying the foundations for higher-speed passenger rail service, a more reliable service, and a more sustainable service across Canada.
[Translation]
Everything we have achieved and continue to achieve is vital to the future of conventional passenger rail in Canada. And it is equally vital to the success of any high speed rail service, should the government decide to pursue that course.
On this last point, let me make three comments.
First, if a high-speed service is developed, it can only succeed on the foundation already in place for passenger rail—the understanding of the market, and the ability to serve that market. VIA has built that foundation.
[English]
Second, high-speed rail is not an alternative to conventional rail. Experience with high-speed services around the world shows that it succeeds as an integrated component of a larger, coordinated, intermodal network of passenger services, which I know the committee has heard about, including efficient conventional rail services that connect the high-speed backbone to extended communities and regions.
Third, VIA's expertise in passenger transportation, built up over 30 years in the Canadian marketplace, is unique, and would be vital for any high-speed rail service. That is why the Van Horne Institute's 2004 pre-feasibility study on high-speed for Calgary-Edmonton called on VIA's expertise in areas such as ridership and revenue forecasting, operational issues, facility requirements, and projected socio-economic benefits.
Whether high-speed rail is part of Canada's future remains, of course, an open question. We all look forward to the results of the current study on high-speed rail in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, and the findings of this committee. However the question is answered, VIA remains committed to delivering the best possible passenger rail service to Canadians. We are confident that we can deliver results that meet the expectations of our customers and the Government of Canada as transportation needs evolve in the years ahead.
As this committee looks at options for the future, I will be happy to answer questions and provide any other assistance that you may require.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, on behalf of the Van Horne Institute and Peter Wallis, its president and executive director--he is unable to attend today's session, and has asked me to come on his behalf--I thank you for your invitation today.
The Van Horne Institute, for those of you who may not be familiar with it, is a not-for-profit organization affiliated with the University of Calgary, University of Alberta, Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, and Athabaska University. It was established to assist industry, government, and the public in addressing transportation issues, and includes 65 public, private, and non-profit members, including our fellow presenters VIA Rail.
I am an independent consultant, and head the firm of Shirocca Consulting. I have a background in planning and economics and 34 years of professional experience primarily focused on transportation. I've worked in both the public and private sectors, on projects ranging from feasibility studies to implementation of major capital infrastructure. I've been an associate of the Van Horne Institute since 2003, and was the project manager for the 2004 Calgary-Edmonton high-speed rail study.
Like the Quebec-Windsor corridor, high-speed rail has been studied and reviewed before in Alberta, first in 1984 and again in 1995. Both of those studies concluded that the costs were high and the ridership at the time insufficient to justify proceeding, but recommended future reviews.
The 2004 study was initiated at the request of the Alberta government in response to renewed interest about high-speed rail and recognition of the technological advances that had occurred in the interim period.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge and thank the federal government for its financial and technical participation in that study, through Transport Canada and the Office of Western Economic Development, along with the Province of Alberta. As well, the study received both financial and in-kind technical work and expertise contributed by several members of the Van Horne, including Bombardier Transportation, CANAC, Canadian Pacific Railway, SNC-Lavalin, and VIA Rail. However, I must also emphasize that all technical work provided through these members was reviewed by independent consultants and a steering committee to ensure no bias to the study's findings and consistency with the study's overall conservative approach.
The purpose of the 2004 study was to assess the feasibility of high-speed rail within the 300-kilometre corridor between Calgary and Edmonton; to identify, for governments and others, the economic and other implications of high-speed rail implementation; and recommend next steps. The study looked at two corridors: a new, or greenfield, corridor, which had been the sole focus of the previous studies; and shared use of the existing CPR corridor. However, both options assumed access into the city centres along the CPR corridor to avoid disruption and high cost, whereas the previous studies assumed terminating outside downtown for the same reasons.
Examination of the CPR option was possible because of the recent development of a non-electric technology by Bombardier at the request of the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration. The Jet Train, as it's called, is designed to meet North American engineering standards for mixed train operations, and is capable of operating at speeds up to 240 kilometres per hour.
The study also looked at electric high-speed rail capable of speeds up to 330 kilometres per hour, similar to those trains that operate in Europe on the greenfield option, allowing an apples-to-apples comparison of the two corridor options without technology bias.
These two train technologies were chosen because they were able to offer travel time of two hours or less, which market research showed as being the threshold to shift demand from other modes, particularly the car. By comparison, travel time today is, on average, three hours by car between Calgary and Edmonton and slightly more by air and bus.
The study assumed five stations, one in each downtown, two near each city's respective airports, and one in Red Deer, located at approximately the half-way point on the line. It also included provision for a new maintenance facility.
The service plan assumed five train sets, with four in service and one in maintenance rotation or held as a spare, to provide 11 train departures per weekday and five on weekends from Calgary and Edmonton respectively, plus an additional departure, or half-trips, from Red Deer on all days.
The price was set--based on market research to optimize revenue and ridership--at $115 return for business trips and $97 for non-business trips.
The total capital cost for the project was estimated to range from $1.7 billion for the CPR option to $3.4 billion for the electric greenfield option, slightly less for the non-electric. The main difference in these costs for the two greenfield options was electrification. The higher land acquisition and more extensive infrastructure requirements accounted for the difference between the CPR option and the greenfield corridor.
Annual operating costs were estimated to be $71 million for the CPR to $97 million for the greenfield, depending on the option chosen in year three, the first stable year of operations, and were then inflated by 2% per annum. Ridership was estimated to range from 1.7 million passengers annually for the CPR option and approximately 2 million for the greenfield, the difference reflecting the faster travel time of the greenfield option. This would constitute a 28% market share of all trips between the cities, with 75% of those trips diverted from cars, which are, and will remain, the dominant mode of choice for travel in the corridor. Revenue was based on passenger fares only and estimated to range from $83 million to $101 million per year, depending on the service option chosen.
Two financing structures were also examined: a totally government-funded option, and a P3, or a private-public partnership, whereby the private sector funded all rolling stock and equipment, such as ticket-vending machines and communications, and government funded infrastructure costs. This analysis revealed that operating revenues could cover all operating costs for all options and pay back all capital, plus almost $700 million, for the CPR option, and 73% of the greenfield electric costs over 30 years. These numbers do not include other benefits, such as employment and income, travel time savings, safety benefits, greenhouse gas reduction, and economic development, nor, in the case of the CPR corridor option, the benefits to freight and industry that would result from rail upgrades.
The study concluded that high-speed rail could generate significant benefits to the province and that there was sufficient demand at that time, in 2004, to support high-speed rail that offered two hours or less in travel time in the corridor. It also confirmed the technical and financial feasibility of both corridor options, the greenfield and the existing CPR, and both train technology options. I noted the advantages offered by the CPR option of lower capital and operating costs, less property disruption, complexity, and time required for implementation, and benefits to the freight industry, but the need to balance this against higher ridership, benefits of an exclusive corridor, and more extensive negotiations was also noted.
The study's recommendations included out carrying out an investment grade ridership analysis to provide greater certainty to this, which is typically the area of largest risk and uncertainty on projects of this kind. I can report to you that the Alberta government accepted this recommendation and has since carried out the analysis, but the report has yet to be released, to my knowledge.
In closing, and on a personal note, while as a consultant I welcome more studies, and as a taxpayer I value and appreciate the need for due diligence, I have also observed in my 34 years of professional practice that at the end of the day, projects require a leap of faith, courage, conviction in the value they can deliver and the benefits they anticipate, and the determination to achieve this.
There is no question that high-speed rail will require government involvement if it is to proceed. There is equally no question that government must participate fully in that implementation. It has the authority and power necessary to acquire right-of-way and a vested interest in how this right-of-way and service can shape our future, but I also have no doubt that the private sector is willing and able to share risk and participate in these ventures if they are properly structured.
I'm happy to leave the deliberation on leaps of faith with the committee and wish you good luck.
[Translation]
I apologize for not having enough confidence to speak French just a little. In any event, I am very happy to be here.
Thank you.
:
Ms. Chow, the first comment I need to make is that this is very important, and once again, when we talk about high-speed trains that travel in excess of 300 kilometres per hour, they do travel on dedicated and exclusive right-of-way.
Ms. Olivia Chow: That's what I thought.
Mr. Paul Côté: That's the first thing.
However, one needs to keep in mind this other notion--and you touched on it--that this is the spine, or the backbone, of a much larger network that connects to it. I'm not sure what the routing will be when the decision is made, let's say hypothetically, between Quebec City and Windsor. I'm not sure what that routing will be, but the concept.... That's the way it is. I know a bit about the French network and that's exactly what they've done. They've developed a high-speed network and now they're in the process, and well advanced in it, of modernizing the regional network. That network connects.
Let use the example of Kingston. East of Kingston, in the direction of Coteau and Cornwall, let's say, assuming the routing of the high-speed train would go Montreal-Ottawa, Ottawa-Toronto, people ask what is going to happen with Coteau, with Cornwall, and with other communities. I believe the mayor of Kingston was in front of your committee. I read his comments and his valid concerns. But until the routing is defined, I think we need not to draw quick assumptions. The network would feed off other modes or other types of rail services that are more conventional. It could be buses. It could be the highway system.
In the case of Toronto, as you say, we have ongoing discussions with the City of Toronto on the development of that station. GO Transit is involved in these discussions. The city knows that these studies are going on because the Government of Ontario is involved.
Our vision is that whatever or whoever operates it--if it ever gets decided to operate it--our vision is that we will try to make the point that these systems must connect with each other and complement each other, be they conventional rail, high-speed rail, bus, highways--
Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
Mr. Côté, a couple of things you said today really resonated with me. First of all, your analogy of the backbone is something that I think we Canadians need to hear, because all of us can relate to the benefits of having a backbone that holds us up. I think we need to see this in the context of the bigger vision of what it means to our country in high-speed rail, not just in single access routes like Edmonton to Calgary or Toronto to Montreal. We need to envision this from the much larger perspective.
To carry on that analogy, the backbone is only beneficial, really, when the appendages are all there to work. You spoke to Ms. Chow about the integrated networks that we would need to see. What we didn't touch on was short rail and some of the light rail, such as, for instance, in Toronto, the Scarborough rail that we have there. The integration of those projects would be absolutely critical to how all of this would work. I think that analogy is something that could be fleshed out, if we want to use that term.
One of the things that you also said, though, was that public interest in these issues is high. Could you speak about that? Have you spoken to your clients? How have they reacted to this whole endeavour on high-speed rail? Many of us have had the experience of travelling in Europe; I, for one, have had the experience both in Europe and in Japan and have seen the benefits of high-speed rail in those communities. We are neither of those communities, with our population densities spread out so far, but I wonder if could you speak a little bit about that?
Perhaps, Ms. Watts, you could talk about corridors and this whole idea of the spine. Have there been corridors identified that would, across the country, make a spine that would give us a national vision?
Mr. Côté.
:
I don't think we are doing it backwards, actually. We explained this before, but I can elaborate on it.
In terms of the investments currently being made in the company, $923 million, we are investing about $475 million in infrastructure. That money is not going to get wasted and lost. There are regional markets and local markets that will continue and that will require service. I strongly believe they deserve a great rail service, even if it's not directly served by the high-speed rail network, if that ever sees the light of day.
I talked about Cornwall and Coteau and other areas that may not eventually be on the high-speed line. They nevertheless deserve, I think, to have a quality service, and that's what we're doing. We're building up the system gradually. We're increasing speeds and we're increasing capacity to build frequencies. We are investing in our equipment that will be used for regional, local, and intermediate city markets--the LRCs, the locomotives, and so forth. The LRC is one type of equipment that we use.
So in terms of what you said, I don't think so; it's just a natural evolution, I think. As André Gravelle mentioned before, as we go along we need to invest in and build the franchise, which is what we intend to do.
Keep in mind that even if the government were to approve a system now, make a decision now, it would take ten years, let's say, to build. Ten years, I'm told, is a reasonable amount of time that it would take to build. So what do we do in the meantime? We need to continue to build the franchise, develop the markets, and solidify the foundation and the market share of that mode. I believe that.
:
Merci, monsieur le président. As President of Thales Canada, I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee today to speak on the issue of high-speed rail in Canada and more specifically on what we would be able to provide in the way of high-speed train control systems.
[English]
I will be sharing my time with Kevin Fitzgerald, our vice-president of business development within the rail signalling division of our company in Toronto. I will start first with a few words about our company.
Thales is a world leader for electronic systems, serving the fields of defence, aerospace, and security with world-leading and dual-use technologies. Similarly, in Canada, Thales Canada is organized into three business lines: one for defence, based in Ottawa and Montreal; one for avionics, based in Montreal; and one for rail signalling, based in Toronto. We employ 1,350 people and our sales last year were over $400 million Canadian.
As a worldwide company, Thales Group's sales last year exceeded $18 billion, and we employed 68,000 people in more than 50 countries. Out of this number, 22,000 people and 19% of the revenues were directed to R and D. This R and D capacity and focus were exactly what led our company to establish our facility in Toronto in the seventies, when the province decided to encourage the development of modern urban transit systems.
Today, I am proud to say that our Toronto operation is a world leader in rail signalling and an international centre of excellence for our group, the Thales Group. From Toronto, we are providing our customers worldwide with turnkey solutions that increase performance and capacity while reducing operating, maintenance, and infrastructure costs.
In Canada, our systems are in service in Vancouver for the SkyTrain line and the Canada line, and in Toronto for the Scarborough rapid transit line. As an exporter from Canada, we have delivered major projects in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, London, Kuala Lumpur, Seoul, and New York City, and we are now developing a system for Paris, just to mention some of them.
[Translation]
On the issue of high-speed rail, Thales has been a world leader through its European units and its systems are currently in use on lines in France, Spain, Greece, Germany, Finland, Turkey, Algeria and Mexico.
[English]
The construction of a high-speed railway system in Canada would have a very significant industrial impact for Thales Canada. The Thales Group has as a policy to ensure, when we have such a major project, the transfer of technology and knowledge from other business groups worldwide into a division—and in this case, into our division in Toronto—to provide the Canadian customer with a solution that will be not only the best solution the group can offer, but, most importantly, a Canadian solution.
I would like now to give the floor to Kevin, who will give you more technical information about our technology.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to provide further details on the technology that is behind the efficient operation of any high-speed railway.
All railways need to operate according to a set of rules that ensures the safety of the passengers, trains, and everything in the immediate vicinity of the railway in addition to the actual service provided by the railway. These operating rules are embedded in what is called the “signalling and train control” system, usually shortened to “signalling”.
High-speed railways in Europe use an implementation of signalling that is known globally in the industry as the ETCS, or European train control system. ETCS has the advantage of being a universal signalling system that can be used for all modes of train service in addition to such high-speed operations as commuter and freight operation. ETCS enables the transmission of information from along the track to the train, allowing the computerized on-board equipment to calculate and monitor continuously the maximum-operation speed of the train in connection with a graphic display for the driver in the cab of the train.
ETCS brings considerable advantages to railways--for example, increased capacity on existing lines as a result of reducing headways, or the space between trains; higher speeds up to a maximum of 500 kilometres per hour; reduced maintenance costs due to less equipment; and, as well, improved safety.
There are several levels of ETCS, depending on the complexity of the requirements of the railway's operation. The fundamental building blocks of ETCS are well defined, comprising a warning indicated to the driver when approaching a signal, a train stop function at signals, or a supervised braking curve in front of signals. These are selectable by the railway, depending on the level of supervision required.
Most importantly, at all levels of ETCS, the on-board computer compares the train's speed with the maximum speed allowed on that section of the railway, and applies the brakes automatically if the speed is exceeded.
The multiple levels of ETCS allow the optimized application under different operational and technical conditions for a specific line or subnetwork. Because trainborne equipment is downwards-compatible, trains can operate seamlessly on the whole network. A high-speed train could actually transfer to commuter or freight lines in certain instances. In some systems, an increase in train services of up to 40% has been achieved.
ETCS levels one and two are now in operation on all kinds of railways, from high-speed to conventional to commuter and regional lines, covering high-density and low-density operations. By now, thousands of kilometres of ETCS track and on-board equipment are either in service or being installed. A total of 35,000 kilometres worldwide has been projected to be equipped.
It's interesting to note that 50% of this track is located outside Europe, in countries such as Mexico--and hopefully here in Canada. This demonstrates the global acceptance and performance of ETCS.
Suppliers and all global customers alike are working together to maintain a common framework to ensure stability of ETCS today and in the future. A well-defined change control management process maintains the standard, using feedback from all stakeholders. This is a continuous process to keep ETCS stable while still being able to be improved.
From the beginning, one intention was to open the market with ETCS so that interfaces were standardized, which fostered competition between several suppliers of ETCS trackside and trainborne equipment. Competition is now well established, safeguarding cost-effective and efficient solutions for the benefit of railways worldwide.
This is certainly relevant for project tendering and implementation. Additionally, it guarantees a long lifespan for the system solution, because more than one supplier is able to deliver components.
In summary, the signalling technology exists today that can safely and reliably operate high-speed rail, as demonstrated in countries such as France, Germany, Spain, and Japan. Thales looks forward to participating in the building of Canada's first high-speed railway, much like we participated in building Canada's first driverless metro system in Vancouver in the eighties.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon. My name is Toby Lennox. I'm the vice-president of corporate affairs and communications for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the GTAA's perspective regarding high-speed rail in Canada.
I should also point out that I've been asked by my colleagues at Aéroports de Montréal to indicate that they espouse the views that I'm going to be offering today.
The GTAA is the private not-for-profit corporation that operates Toronto Pearson International Airport. As Canada's busiest airport, Toronto Pearson is an essential component of the transportation infrastructure that connects our nation with the rest of the world. We handle approximately one-third of Canada's passenger traffic and 50% of all air cargo. This activity fuels Toronto Pearson's role as a critical economic engine for southern Ontario and Canada, generating thousands of jobs and billions in annual economic output, wages, and taxes.
Mr. Chairman, just as your committee is examining options for addressing the transportation needs of Canada, we too are considering the future of Canada's transportation system and our role in it. There are many uncertainties: the rising cost and scarcity of oil, the impact of environmental regulations, and other changes we have yet to anticipate. We must, however, continue to work with you and all levels of government to anticipate these changes, examine alternatives and solutions, and ultimately strengthen our transportation infrastructure.
Airports are not islands unto themselves. For Canada's transportation system to operate efficiently, effectively, and sustainably, intermodality is necessary. Just as the air mode cannot operate in isolation from other modes, the same applies for high-speed rail. This is particularly the case in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. In exploring how to best implement high-speed rail, it is in all of our interests to consider it in the context of the whole transportation system. Airports are not destinations. Rather, they are facilities that accommodate transitions for both people and goods--in other words, gateways.
Having recently completed our airport development program, Toronto Pearson is poised for growth. Growth would not be possible without reliable, innovative, and competitive aviation infrastructure. If planned properly, high-speed rail provides an opportunity to strengthen the role of major airports as regional transportation hubs. The greater Toronto area is currently experiencing a renewed investment by all levels of government in regional transportation. A regional transportation plan created by the region's transportation agency, Metrolinx, outlines a coordinated multi-modal transportation system, with focus on rapid transit expansion.
In this plan, Toronto Pearson was identified as a special mobility hub. It is considered a key connection point for several of the recommended top-priority rapid transit links, including the proposed air-rail link to downtown Toronto. Due to its relationship with urban growth centres, Pearson provides an opportunity for efficient intermodal transfers of high volumes of local, regional, and international travellers. It is our view that the integration of high-speed rail would augment the efficiencies of this planned regional transportation system. Further, the GTAA is very pleased to have been asked by Transport Canada to participate as one of the private sector members on the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway and trade corridor.
Through this forum, we hope to advance the discussion about transportation in this corridor in an integrated fashion. It would be an opportunity lost if we did not maximize easy and efficient connections between the rail, highway, and air modes. To achieve the full benefit of high-speed rail, we need to look to the experience of Europe and other parts of the world. Several countries have built or are building extensive high-speed rail networks that often link directly into major airports, such as in Frankfurt and Paris. We will need, however, to come up with a made-in-Canada solution.
High-speed rail will have an impact on air passenger service. In the Windsor-Quebec corridor, most of these impacts will be experienced on what is called the "eastern triangle", the services between Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa. This segment for the GTAA accounts for approximately 3.5 million passengers annually, or more than 9,500 passengers per day. With competition from high-speed rail service, we would expect the demand for these short-haul domestic flights to soften. To what extent that would be would depend on a number of factors, including the cost of the new rail service, markets served, location of stops, etc.
At the same time, we need to look at the potential options, consequences, and possibilities. Will reduced demand for short-haul operations free up capacity for more long-haul flights to international, transborder, and long-haul domestic destinations? Will this ease future capacity pressures and thus delay the need to expand airport facilities further?
The impact of high-speed rail on air travel in this corridor is not yet entirely clear. However, to ensure that the air transportation system can withstand this transitional culture shock, it is vital that any future planning related to high-speed rail is integrated into the existing airport system.
As previous studies of high-speed rail have shown, this mode of transportation will require a significant financial commitment. That is not to say that the investment should not be made; however, the financial viability of the entire system needs to be considered so that the maximum benefits of high-speed rail can be realized. Therefore, we must keep an eye on the continued financial health of the aviation sector when decisions are being made regarding the funding of transportation infrastructure.
In conclusion, we encourage the federal government to continue to explore high-speed rail as a component of our national transportation system. The government should ensure that a big picture approach is taken. We believe that there are real opportunities to integrate high-speed rail and international, transborder, and long-haul domestic travel from airports, and in particular, Toronto's Pearson. It is imperative that these modes are integrated in order to take advantage of intermodal efficiencies that will benefit all Canadians through a strong transportation network.
Thank you.
:
Absolutely, and I'm delighted that you brought it up. The GTAA takes a very long-range look both to the role of Pearson airport in the community and to the impact we have on that community. It's our view that the only sustainable option we have at the present time is to look for alternative means to get passengers--and workers, by the way--to the airport. Therefore, you actually have to start looking at a varied approach.
On the one hand, we are delighted by the initiatives that have been taken to actually have the link to downtown. The air-rail link has been initiated. We have an environmental assessment proceeding. I think that is a terrific initiative.
We are also working very closely right now with all of the transportation agencies in Mississauga, in Brampton, and in the city of Toronto, and with Metrolinx, to augment the mass transit systems to the airport, which, I completely concede, are woefully inadequate. We have about 42,000 people working at the airport. We are in an area, as you are very familiar with, that is economically depressed. We are a major employment centre, but one of the major gaps we have is, simply, that the access to the airport itself is inadequate. So right now we are working with the TTC and with Metrolinx on the engineering drawings to see if we can bring the Eglinton light rail transit system into the airport. We're doing the same thing along Finch.
We have been working very closely with Brampton. After all, most of our employees come from the north and the west, so we're working with Brampton to improve the transit service into the airport, keeping in mind the very odd and unusual hours that we have at the airport. Our peak time for employees is about five o'clock in the morning.
I completely agree with you: we have to take these small steps before we're going to take the larger step of high-speed rail. However, the concept remains the same. The intermodality of rail and air and the movement of people is essential to the long-term health of the system we have, so it is something we're pursuing very vigorously.