Transport Committee on May 12th, 2009

[Helena Borges]

Yes. That's part of what I was commenting on to Mr. Laframboise, the environmental, social, and economic impacts of doing something like this. Does it open up new possibilities in terms of economic development opportunities for places in between, let's say places like Kingston? If you have faster service between Kingston and Toronto, or for that matter anywhere else in the corridor, does that open up new kinds of mobility and employment opportunities that weren't there before? We want to analyze that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to go to Ms. Brown. We're well over.

Thank you.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our presenter. I really enjoyed going through this. I am a GTA member of Parliament, and as often as I am able, I do make use of VIA Rail and find it a very advantageous way to travel. I get lots of work done on the train, and I thoroughly enjoy the travel.

Having done extensive travel, I have had the opportunity to use the high-speed rail in Tokyo, and I've also had the opportunity to use the high-speed rail in France, between Paris and Strasbourg. It's a wonderful mode of travel.

One of the things this report said was that air carriers could lose 44% of their projected corridor ridership in 2005. So this is picking up a little bit from where Mr. Bevington was. In these studies, have we looked at any of the things that have gone on in Europe? I would suggest that this is probably a very dated comment. We've seen extensive change in Ontario, particularly with the advent of new airline carriers coming out of Toronto, the movement of another airline carrier from York region to London, servicing London to Ottawa. Could you make any comment on that? I know that this will be part of what you're saying.

Maybe I'll just lump all of my questions into one, and then I'll let you address them.

You were talking about the increasing opportunity for travel, and I think that's a very important part of this study. Looking at corridors, right now we're talking about Montreal to Toronto. Is there any possibility that corridor option might include York Region? I obviously have a vested interest in seeing it service York Region. Because we have hydro corridors, for instance, that already come through many of these areas, is there any opportunity to make use of those corridors that already exist?

My third question is this. We're only looking at Windsor to Quebec at this point. Would there be any extension of this study into Calgary to Edmonton? Are we looking at other areas in the country?

I'm sorry, I've kind of lumped them all into one.

[Helena Borges]

That's no problem.

We agree with you that the conclusion of the 1992-1995 study is probably dated—we think; we don't know. As I said before, probably the most essential piece of the study we're going to be doing is to understand how ridership has evolved and how the modal behaviour of people will change.

What we're going to be doing is what we call surveys of passengers' stated preference and revealed preference surveys. A passenger today may be taking a car, a plane, or a bus. We want to understand, given certain scenarios in terms of travel time and convenience of the trip, whether they would make the shift, and why or why not. This will help us then determine what would be the possible shift from one mode to the other mode. Whether it stays at 44% or goes higher or lower, we'll see, but that's a key piece. That then helps us determine what the complete ridership would be on the corridor. And the corridor we're looking at is Quebec to Windsor.

Your second question was about routing and existing corridors. We have asked the consultants, taking into account the ridership, what the options would be for routing that would take advantage of that ridership potential. You want to make sure you're capturing in the routing the big pockets of potential ridership, or that you have good connections to them.

We have asked them to look at existing corridors, whether the existing corridor that VIA uses today, which is a CN line, in effect, or the CP corridor, which is north of that, or other corridors—highway corridors, or others such as you mentioned, such as hydro corridors. We haven't limited them. We've asked them to identify the corridors based on the use of the system. We'll see what they come back with.

To the extent that they are existing corridors, this fact makes it easier, because as Mr. Volpe said, it's on an existing line. There is already development on it; this could help expedite things. At the same time, the population has shifted a lot. You know what has happened in Toronto, that many of the commuters are now north and not south of the 401. We have to look at that.

The other important thing is connectivity to the transit systems. We want to make sure, wherever this routing is, that when you're getting close to urban areas there is good connectivity between the rail and intercity rail service, and then the local commuter rail service or light rail services, or even air-rail link services. That will be taken into account as well. One of the things we learned from the European experience is that if you have a good connection, people will take it. If you have to switch modes altogether, then people tend to not get on the mode if they have to keep switching.

You asked about looking at other routings. We participated, back in 2004, with the Van Horne Institute in Calgary together with the Province of Alberta, in looking at a high-level feasibility study for high-speed rail between Edmonton and Calgary. That study recommended two possible scenarios, similar to what's been going on here: that you use an existing shared corridor with CP Rail or a whole new corridor. Of course, the costs vary, depending on the scenario.

They did not at that time do what we call a market type of ridership assessment, so the province, we understand, has been looking at that. I don't think they've issued any study yet. We've not involved in it, but the province was going further into certain elements of the earlier study to look at the opportunities for doing it.

Other than those two...right now, those are the only high-speed rail looks that have happened.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Do I have another moment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have 20 seconds.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Just looking at what has gone on in Europe—with the availability of high-speed rail there between many of their urban centres, they have also implemented air buses from a lot of the airports as well—do you think the competition is going to be a bad thing for other modes of transportation?

[Helena Borges]

We believe in competition; we believe in choice. The fundamental difference between Canada and Europe is the population density. We are a very sparsely populated country, even in urban areas, compared with Europe. And we have huge corridors to cover. None of the U.S. corridors is over 500 miles, while this one is...how long, Kevin?

[Kevin Lawless, Senior Strategic Policy and Special Project Officer, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport]

It's 1,200.

[Helena Borges]

So it's huge, and the population is not very big. That's where they have the advantage that you can get people to take the train, and the train is used heavily for many purposes, right?

They have also been a bit creative in looking at other policies, that where certain flights, short-haul flights, are now not permitted between certain cities, the train becomes the mode. You have the bus, you have your car, but planes may not be permitted.

When we looked at this, and looking at the governance model, the sort of policy mould for this, we've asked to look at that. Are there things we need to think about in Canada if we want to make this more attractive, a sort of similar experience to Europe? Ultimately, we just don't have the population density they do in the United States or in Europe. That's a reality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I might even add that there may be an opportunity for markets that have been abandoned by the airlines or other transportation. I think the comment for western Canada is that there's a lot of need out there and a lot of opportunity that I hope we don't overlook.

Mr. Dhaliwal, I know you're going to share your time with Mr. Kennedy.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Borges and Mr. Lawless.

President Obama has come up with a plan: the Pacific northwest corridor from Oregon to Seattle to Vancouver. Looking at Vancouver to the border, that's a very short segment of that corridor. Have you followed up on that proposal? Have you also done the cost-benefit study on that particular portion of the fast track?

[Helena Borges]

We have not.

Amtrak has talked to us in the past. It's Amtrak that actually operates that service. VIA Rail does not.

They are going to, or are planning to, introduce a couple or at least one more train for the Olympics, possibly two more trains in that corridor. They've done some improvements to facilitate that, but we haven't done any studies between Vancouver and Seattle.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

The other issue you mentioned is that you did a study in 1995, and there have been technological developments since then. What is the impact of these new technologies or technological developments on the feasibility of this fast train between these two cities, Windsor and Quebec?

[Helena Borges]

What we think will be the impact...and we don't know for sure, but given that there is a much broader range of technologies available today than there was in 1992 or 1995, we'll have better choices, say, that are suited to the Canadian environment. Also, we're hoping that because of these developments—I don't know if I'll say it—the costs have come down, but there would be more competition in the supplier market in terms of the available technologies. Also, the speeds have improved, so you're probably able to do a better quality of service.

So the technological advancements will hopefully play in favour of a new service and give us much more choice. We do have to keep in mind that Canada, having a northern climate, does have requirements that certain services may not have in Europe, because of the climate effects and things like that.

Those are the kinds of factors that will be taken into account, but there has been—I won't say an explosion—quite a large development of new technologies in the marketplace.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

It's back to Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

About the American experience, is there a good anticipation by you, as responsible folks within the federal government, about whether the latest American initiative will put us out of sync with any level of cooperation and about what the impacts might be?

There seems to be a bigger bite that they're taking: $8 billion is part of their recovery program, a billion dollars a year. What is your view today about what that does to fast rail? Are there opportunities for Canada that we need to be very alert to right now?

[Helena Borges]

We keep a very close eye on what happens in the U.S., just as they do on us.

I'm even pleased to tell you that two years ago, when Amtrak was looking at expanding its service and changing its network, the model they were looking at was VIA Rail. They came and talked to us, and we shared information with them and planning.

VIA Rail cooperates with Amtrak. For example, into Buffalo-Toronto, they meet at the border and “swap passengers”—if you want to call it that—swap cars. We are keeping a very close eye. A lot of the investments this government is making in VIA Rail, in fact, are going to get to a lot of the same improvements that we think are going to happen in the U.S. As I've said, there are 10 corridors, and $8 billion sounds like a lot but isn't that much when you're looking at how many corridors there are.

The improvements at this point probably aren't going to make significant changes. If they have, they do have a long-term plan. We don't know the details of that yet, but perhaps with the additional funding, they may be able to do more, but wherever there is opportunity, both VIA and Amtrak talk to each other a lot. We would try to coordinate to make sure passengers have fluidity.

Four of the corridors, by the way, if you do get a chance, are corridors that could tie into the Canadian system: in Montreal, in Buffalo-Toronto, Windsor-Detroit, and then Vancouver-Seattle.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That's my key concern. Our investment is $13 billion, and if we're looking only at the infrastructure stimulus investment, it's not proportionately as large, but I'm not completely worried about that. It's perhaps going to stimulate industry response and so on, and will we lose out? How do we stay very focused? We've had companies in Canada building high-speed rail everywhere else but not here. Have any of those things been taken into account?

My view is that a year delay on the study is a little bit unfortunate, given a number of things. One of them is the confluence of the need for infrastructure building. By not having a plan ready to go, we're somewhat disadvantaged.

Maybe you could tell us this. Have the Americans got a plan that's ready to go? In other words, when they talk about $13 billion of investment, are those pieces that will fit a high-speed rail, or are they just going to contribute towards options? What is your sense of that?

[Helena Borges]

Like you, we've read a lot of the material and we've had a couple of discussions with officials at the Department of Transportation. Our understanding is that they will be doing a call for proposals. So the proposals are on three levels. There are projects that are ready to roll and could get into the ground in the next year or so. They may or may not be high-speed rail projects; they will be passenger rail projects that may be part of these corridors or may be part of their regional service.

Then in the next round.... And I don't know when the first round will be; we assume it will be this year, but we don't know for sure. The next round could be next year or could be the year after that. Then they're going to start looking at these more comprehensive proposals for the corridors.

You mentioned $13 billion. So far only $8 billion is approved. The other $5 billion is still to be—

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

There's $5 billion.

[Helena Borges]

Yes, the President is planning to put it in his budget bill, but that isn't approved funding yet and probably won't be until the fall, if it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Pomerleau.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Laframboise.

Thank you for being here, Ms. Borges. My question concerns my riding. I live halfway between Quebec City and Montreal, in Drummondville. We have very good conventional service, and people are happy with it. The train stops at all the little towns on its route. I can get the people in my riding to accept the idea that an HSR line is going to be built somewhere other than in our riding, provided that I am sure that the conventional service will not be affected and will continue to be offered.

Am I to understand that if the project were carried out, this HSR service would be offered in parallel to the existing conventional service?

[Helena Borges]

I cannot say right now. We do not know where the new train will go, whether it will have a direct impact on the current VIA Rail service, whether the route will be the same or whether we will need conventional service and high speed rail service.