Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also really appreciate the opportunity to appear today.
I'm not a rail expert, but I'd like to report to you briefly on a trip that I took on May 28 and May 29 with Mayor Gregor Robertson to Seattle and Portland to join Cascadia Rail Week, which is a joint project of a number of communities along the Amtrak rail corridor from Eugene, Oregon, to Vancouver, B.C. These communities see President Obama's $8 billion stimulus investment in high-speed rail as an unprecedented opportunity to realize their long-standing dream of high-speed or higher-speed passenger rail services all the way from Eugene to Vancouver.
State governments have already invested $800 million to $900 million along the corridor in the last 15 years. They've been rewarded with major gains in ridership, particularly between Seattle and Portland. On the trip that we participated in, municipal leaders as well as political leaders from the congressional level and from state legislatures travelled on that train to meet and talk about the possibilities.
During our meetings there were several important developments. One was that U.S. federal officials arrived to brief the Washington State Department of Transportation on how to structure their funding application for up to $800 million of this stimulus investment. The application has to be filed by June 17. Mayor Robertson signed a memorandum of agreement with Portland Mayor Sam Adams to promote passenger rail along the corridor with a view to laying the foundation for real high-speed rail. This memorandum is now being circulated to municipal leaders along the corridor for endorsement.
Finally, I think your committee's meetings and your hearings into the high-speed rail issue have really highlighted the opportunities there, but up to now, unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't been a lot of focus on the west coast potential. The Cascadia project has a very real prospect of success, and the potential economic and environmental benefits to Canada are obvious. We're talking about benefits that would flow long before the development of a true high-speed rail system.
However, Canada has so far refused to step up in the most basic way. Amtrak is looking to add a second train each day between Seattle and Vancouver. Ottawa has insisted that Amtrak pay the cost of customs and immigration clearance to bring that train across the border, so for the sake of about $1,500 a day, we're placing a huge question mark over Canada's interest in expanded tourism and business trade with the Pacific Northwest through the expansion of passenger rail.
So far, Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan has relented slightly, but only to the extent that he will waive the fees during the 2010 Olympic Games. The cost to Amtrak will be about half a million dollars per year, and the Washington State Department of Transportation estimates that the benefits to the Canadian economy from the expanded service could be up to $17 million annually. One estimate puts it even higher.
I'm going to be very brief. I have a number of very simple recommendations. I think they're cheap and cost-effective steps that would allow Canada to step up in the very short window that's left before they file their application and indicate our commitment to opening the door to expanded passenger rail, higher-speed rail, and even high-speed rail traffic to Vancouver.
The first recommendation is that the committee agree to urge Minister Van Loan to reconsider and waive the border fees for Amtrak. As The Vancouver Sun put it in a recent editorial, “These trains could have been rolling nine months ago. Further delay is foolish and continuing to insist on recovering direct costs is simply shortsighted.” It's quite an embarrassment as a Canadian to visit with Americans and have the fee held up as an obstacle to their efforts to achieve investments on their side of the line that would have direct Canadian benefits.
Second, past this improvement, I hope we can agree to urge the federal government to work with U.S. authorities to further streamline customs and immigration clearances on both sides of the border. The American situation is not perfect, and this streamlining would have the effect of reducing travel time between Seattle and Vancouver.
Third, I hope your committee will endorse the high-speed rail concept for the Cascadia corridor, which has been talked about and under development for almost 20 years, and call for Ottawa to support a coordinated strategy involving all B.C. stakeholders, including especially and very importantly our freight rail carriers, so that we can support the expansion of passenger rail without negatively impacting goods movement.
Finally, I think we should see if we can find agreement to recommend action by Ottawa as soon as possible, in cooperation with the Province of British Columbia, the involved railways, and municipalities, to confront the long-standing need for new investment in B.C. rail infrastructure on the north-south alignment. New investment is especially important for the 105-year-old Fraser River swing bridge crossing, which reduces the trains to 10 miles per hour, or something like 15 kilometres per hour, to get across the Fraser River. It's a major bottleneck, but it is now required for goods movement.
I'm not an expert in rail. I'd be happy to answer any questions about some of the other measures the Americans proposed that would be cheap and very cost-effective, would lead to an improvement in traffic, and, we believe, would lay the groundwork for much bigger investment down the road.
I thank you again for inviting me today.