Transport Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Kevin Fitzgerald, Vice-President, Business Development, Thales Rail Signalling Solutions, Thales Canada Inc.]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Lennox.

[Toby Lennox, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Communications, Greater Toronto Airports Authority]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here with us this afternoon. I apologize to you, gentlemen. My questions are all going to be for Mr. Lennox, I'm afraid, but it won't be anything personal.

I am very interested in the connection between the airport and a larger transportation infrastructure. In the city of Toronto, we don't have any connection now between Toronto's Pearson airport and the rest of the public transit system. That is in stark contrast to pretty much every other international city in the world. It really comes to me now that we're talking about this and we're having this discussion in the context of a potential high-speed rail system.

I appreciate the fact that GTAA wants to be involved in those discussions, as it should be, but we heard today again that even if a decision were made today, the likelihood is that it would take a decade for such a system to be built. So my questions for you, Mr. Lennox, have to do more with what we do in the meantime. To the extent that you're in discussions on this topic, what are you recommending that we do in the meantime? Can you speak a little bit to the challenges we're facing in that regard right now?

[Toby Lennox]

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.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

It's unfortunate when we run out of time here; this format really is limited, obviously, in terms of time. But even when we had the witnesses here from VIA, in talking about the long-term prospect of high-speed rail, the concern was that while we talk about a high-speed rail system, an awful lot still needs to be done to improve that system between now and whenever a high-speed rail system might be built.

The concern already has been, I think, that investments in improving the current system are not made because of an anticipation that this is going to cost so much money, there's not much point in making the really middle-level investments that we need for the next decade.

[Toby Lennox]

Absolutely.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Can you comment a little bit in terms of the GTAA and what we're seeing in Toronto, and your involvement with the high-speed discussions?

[Toby Lennox]

I know this may come as a surprise to some, but we actually have stopped building at Pearson airport.

The point is that aviation infrastructure takes a great deal of lead time to build. It's incredibly expensive to build. If we were to anticipate that a portion of traffic would go off, in an ideal world, to high-speed rail, I would have to take that into account in the planning decisions I make at my airport and for the types of developments I make. I will tell you, quite frankly, my concern: that the very imperatives that drive high-speed rail and make the policy case for high-speed rail--we are into peak oil, or we're talking about the greenhouse gas emissions we have to deal with--are the very issues that will hollow out the aviation industry. By the time you've developed high-speed rail, there will be nothing to plug it into. What you're left with is a slightly balkanized country.

We are and we are not Sir John A. Macdonald's Canada, in that it is not practical for us to get from Montreal or Toronto to Vancouver by train. Could we get there by virtue of a mix of the two? These planning decisions take a long time. In order for us to plan adequately and appropriately our aviation infrastructure, we have to be able to match it in with what else is going on.

That is really why we're here at this time. We are here to make sure, to urge, that we have that kind of dialogue and that kind of conversation; we're saying let's take that longer-term, systemic approach to it.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

In your presentation you mention at one point, in the financing section, that the financial viability of the entire system needs to be considered so that the maximum benefits of high-speed rail can be realized.

In a world, or at least in this country, where, although roads are regarded as the public good, rail is not, or not completely--that's a much larger philosophical and economic discussion--what, in your mind, constitutes financial viability?

[Toby Lennox]

To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure. Those are the discussions we're going to have to have. I'm not sure, in my own mind, at what point we're going to potentially hit, because we may or may not hit, a time at which point the aviation industry, or the air carrier industry--I don't want to be speaking about my industry--is saying, look, we're dealing with $250-a-barrel oil, which means we're going to make choices regardless of what infrastructure is available; we'll make those decisions, but it means we'll be cutting out of short haul. They will be making those decisions.

Therefore, the issue I'm talking about is that the discussion has largely been framed around rail and concrete and where the lines go. My problem is that you then have to step back and ask, if you're going to have a transportation system from a commercial perspective, if that will be able to meet the transportation needs. My concern is that it's a broader question, and those issues aren't being raised.

Quite frankly, I'm not here asking for a handout. I'm a commercial operator. I have my pressures. I know what my costs are. I will manage those and I'll be as competitive as I can. I'm just trying to step back and say that you should look at the financial system you have, look at the commercial system you have, at the same time that you're talking about the bricks and mortar, if I can put it that way.

I'm not sure I've answered your question, I'm afraid.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

But you were at least honest at the beginning when you said you weren't really sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You're probably not going to get to ask another one, unfortunately. I have to go to Monsieur Laframboise.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise, go ahead, please.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Baruchel. I'm from the north shore, opposite Montreal, and Mirabel is located in my riding. I've seen first hand the quality of your work on aeronautics systems.

I'd like to talk about rail signaling. Is your work around the world advanced enough for you to tell us what percentage of the total installation cost can be attributed to signaling, or must each situation be analysed individually, because each one is different?

The Quebec-Windsor corridor is approximately 1,200 kilometres long. You have no qualms about installing signaling over 1,200 kilometres of track. Do you know in advance what signaling represents as a percentage of the overall cost of a rail line?

[Kevin Fitzgerald]

The signalling generally represents about 7% of the capital cost of building a rail network. Of course it depends on the complexity of the network, but it's somewhere between 5% and 7%.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I see.

Obviously, there are many different kinds of networks. Members of the public ask us many questions about viaducts. All of this must be factored into the cost. The greater the number of viaducts, the higher the costs. Add to that the fact that signaling systems are now fairly advanced.

I'd like to know how far advanced your technology is, given all of the obstacles that will present themselves. Whether you're dealing with the safety of an overhead rail line or of a track at ground level, whether there are viaducts or not, there is really nothing that worries you here. You've already dealt with these considerations and you are capable of handling anything that comes your way.

[Guy Baruchel]

We have a great deal of experience. We acquired it in Europe, in Asia and in Latin America. We have encountered very different situations and we've never had a problem from a safety standpoint.

Our system relies on communication technologies, located on board and along the tracks and in central command centres. These technologies do not pose any problems, regardless of the configuration of the infrastructure itself.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Nor is the technology affected by temperature.

[Guy Baruchel]

No, the temperature doesn't bother us either. All of our equipment positioned along the tracks is guaranteed and capable of withstanding temperature extremes, that is very low or very high temperatures.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Lennox. Undoubtedly you are a member of the Canadian Airports Council. Mr. Facette made a presentation to the committee this past Tuesday.

Are you a member of the CAC?

[Toby Lennox]

Yes.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I find you much calmer than Mr. Facette. In his opinion, unless airport leases and AIF are abolished, and unless all fees tied to NAV CANADA are eliminated, there is no possible way to...

I think you're right to say that we need to consider transportation from a more global perspective. This is a reality, in Toronto as well as in Montreal. You told us that ADM backed the recommendation that you are making to us today. Isn't that in fact what you said earlier?