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.