Transport Committee on June 16th, 2009

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

There's going to be a study coming back. I think this is a live decision. We don't want to miss your main point; we want to put it in perspective. We need a national transit strategy, that's clear. We need to make some long-term decisions and not short-term infrastructure types of things.

I wonder whether you could address for me a piece that may be related to this, which is the electrification. Could you give me a quick précis of where that needs to be in terms of the dialogue about local and regional transit? It's live in Toronto and maybe in other places. Is that an inevitable direction? I think there has been talk about the airport corridor in Toronto, in particular. People are wondering, if we're going to have all this building taking place, why we aren't moving to that.

I wonder if you could let us know. I don't want you to get enmeshed in what Metrolinx, TTC, or anybody else is going to think about this, but I think that's going to be a key element if we're looking at infrastructure. Is that smart infrastructure for the future, or is that just some kind of choice that we have? I think most of the high-speed links offer at least some different technologies as well, most of them with some pretty green outcomes.

[Michael Roschlau]

There's no question in my mind that, technically, electricity is the best energy source for moving vehicles that start and stop or that travel really fast. The question is whether that electricity is generated on board or comes from elsewhere. The hybrid buses, for example, generate their own electricity on board through a diesel or natural gas engine and store it in batteries and recover it when the vehicle brakes.

The high-speed train requires an electric feed through a wire, just like a subway has a third rail and runs directly off that electricity, which allows it to be pollution free and efficient with very effective increases in speed, acceleration, and deceleration. It's the same for streetcars. It's the same for trolley buses like you have in Vancouver.

But in order to justify the infrastructure investment, which is expensive, you need to have a very intensive service. So there's not much point in electrifying a line where there's a train every half an hour. It makes sense to electrify a line that has very frequent, high-volume service, so that you can spread that investment over a lot of users. If you have a commuter rail line where there's a train every five minutes, the electrification probably makes sense; if you have one that has five trains a day, it probably doesn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Let me tell you that electricity does not present a problem in Quebec. Moreover, Quebec paid for its installations on its own, without getting any money from the federal government. This is not the case with the oil and nuclear industries.

You said that this train must become a new complementary part of public transit. I know that there's not enough money to develop public transit. You say that the Americans are investing $10 billion a year in public transit. Your message to us now is that we should finish the public transit network before discussing the fast train. Am I right?

[Michael Roschlau]

We must ensure long-term funding of public transit before thinking about a fast train. Without a healthy, well-funded and efficient network, we will not get the best advantage from the fast train. In France, the TGV runs between Paris, Lyon and Bordeaux; in Germany, between Frankfurt, Munich and Berlin; in Spain, between Barcelona, Madrid and Cordoba. These countries already had well-developed networks of subways, trains, tramways and buses that were all integrated before implementing the TGV. To a certain extent, the TGV depends on this environment for each of its stations, unless a station is built between the cities with a big parking lot as an incentive. However, I wonder if that is really the objective.

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

I understand, but the fact remains that our public transit system would be able to support a high-speed train network. You do not agree. I agree that we should always invest in public transit. You have got figures on public transit requests. What are they?

[Michael Roschlau]

If you look at the proportion of the Canadian public impacted by a high-speed train, between Montreal and Toronto, or Quebec and Windsor, or Calgary and Edmonton, I do not know what kind of impact a cost-benefit analysis would reveal. It's a matter of balance. Personally, I would like to do both. These two options complement one another in an ideal way. Individuals would be encouraged to use public transportation over long distances, in other words, trains between two cities, and public transit over short distances, at the local transit level. In my opinion, it would be ideal. Let's hope we can afford to do both.

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

I prefer that message. If over the medium term we do not make a decision, we will be forced to widen highways in the Quebec-Montreal-Windsor corridor. There is high population density, there's development and the highways are overloaded. Decisions have to be made. Ideally, everything could be done at once, but we should be cautious. If we hear that we need to deal with the urban transit network first, we will do so, but we need to widen the highways. In doing so, we will encourage people to take their cars to get out of the cities and travel. All of this is not easy. I think this is a turning point.

You mentioned what the American administration is doing. I think Canada has gotten to that point. Like you, I hope we can develop both networks. That is in fact why part of our study aims to integrate mass transit. We will get the report we want. We are heading in the same direction. You seemed to say that we must deal with mass transit before considering high-speed trains. If so, the auto sector will expand further. In some corridors, some people are thinking of widening the highways.

[Michael Roschlau]

Our position is clear. There is a strong link between investing in high speed trains and local and regional mass transit. If we do not have the means to do both, local transit is at a greater advantage throughout the country, in small-size cities and larger ones. For instance, it is rather unlikely that a high-speed train would stop in small towns with populations of 20 000, 50 000 or 100,000. That is the problem, in a way.

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

Correct me if I'm wrong. You may have had an opportunity to examine studies or carry out analyses. Either way, clearly, the more we discourage people from owning cars, the more public transport, including high speed trains, will be favoured and expand. At this point, people do use the public transit system, but they feel that they must have a car because they have to travel between Quebec and Montreal, for instance. In any case, there is no other way to travel. At some point, you have to tip the scales in the other direction.

I was surprised to hear from the motor bus operators' association that they were prepared to join in a public/private partnership that would involve their motor bus network. Obviously, the objective there would be to discourage people from owning cars. It is already a good thing environmentally speaking. At some point, the government is going to have to focus its investments in the area of mass transportation rather than consider building roads and widening highways.

[Michael Roschlau]

It is the same choice. For long distances, we have to decide whether to invest in highways or rail transportation, and for short distances, whether to invest in city highways or public transit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When we look at integrated systems, and say we take Toronto, to integrate the transit system in Toronto so that you would get this kind of ridership on a high-speed rail--just the one in Toronto rather than looking at where the person is going to end up at--what would you see as the changes that would be required in Toronto's urban transit system?

[Michael Roschlau]

I think in the event that we were to have a high-speed rail system in this country, there would need to be really strong linkages and connectivity at each stop. That is to say that whether it's Union Station in Toronto or Gare Centrale in Montreal, or any other city, that needs to be the hub. There needs to be really good access from the surrounding urban area to that particular spot. And that would apply in each case where there's a stop, where there's a station, as I was saying earlier, to avoid the tendency of having to create huge parking garages or parking structures around the station, and so that it's connected from a network perspective as well as from a travel fare perspective.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is this study that's going to take place actually going to address the issues? To your understanding, is the study that's been commissioned to upgrade the previous high-speed rail studies going to actually take into account the requirements for these kinds of connectivity?

[Michael Roschlau]

I couldn't tell you, because I'm not that familiar with the terms of reference of the study. But I would strongly encourage consideration of the benefits to all Canadians of the investment in question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

They did a previous study. This is upgrading a previous study. Are you familiar with the previous study?

[Michael Roschlau]

I'm familiar with it in general, but not specifically with the details.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Are some of the assumptions they've made about ridership based on a model where there's this great connectivity?

[Michael Roschlau]

I couldn't tell you, because quite honestly, the concept of long-distance intercity transport, which high-speed rail is, lies outside of our mandate as an urban and regional transit association.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I guess if you're not familiar with it, then probably it hasn't been done.

[Michael Roschlau]

That's possible.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I think it's quite obviously something that the committee will have to take into account when and if it actually reviews a new study that comes forward.

[Michael Roschlau]

What I can tell you in that regard is that I don't recall CUTA being consulted in those previous studies.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. So are there other studies in the world, or are there other examples that you refer to, to bring this forward at this time?