Evidence of meeting #110 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was capacity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Strategic Planning and Transportation Services, Canadian Pacific Railway
I'll jump in first.
In terms of tripling between now and 2045, I haven't done the math on it. It seems a little aggressive. Long term, if you look at rail demand, it's something in the range of the GDP. There are clearly variances in crop production or the opening of a new mine, let's say for potash. We're not looking at something that's triple, but we certainly have to continue to invest. We have to continue to grow our network capacity, and we have to continue to improve our efficiency.
10:50 a.m.
Director, Business Development, Canadian National Railway Company
That's very true. Tripling seems pretty aggressive. I would wonder how we would get that offshore. You heard Peter Xotta talk about land shortages and port development, all of these sorts of things. I can't imagine the volume could be tripled through an urban area like Vancouver, and I know what's available up at Rupert.
Could it double? I don't know. Again, like James says, I haven't really done the math for decades out. We try to plan for five years or so and stay on top of that.
The port side is going to be exceedingly important with urban encroachment and all the rest that we have to deal with such as lack of land and more resistance to seeing this activity within communities.
10:50 a.m.
President, Southern Railway of British Columbia
I'll share my perspective.
We're going to continue to invest in our key corridors. We're also an operator of a railway corridor owned by the ICF on Vancouver Island. It's a corridor that runs between Victoria and Courtenay with connection to Port Alberni. We're going to continue to work with the ICF on developing those key corridors.
10:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Transportation Planning and Policy, New Westminster, TransLink
In isolation that's a tricky thing to imagine as we think about what the regional road network would have to be to be able to support all of those kinds of interactions. I know that the port did a really great exercise in scenario planning. That could be one of the scenarios.
As we start to look out to 2050 with metro Vancouver on their land use and on our regional network, we really have to see what that range may be with different dynamics at play and understand where the signpost might be in the next five to 10 years to tell you what trajectory you're on.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Cross, you mentioned earlier that there was a transport coalition, a group of agencies that get together and look, I hope, holistically at the transportation network.
First of all, can you confirm that? Who's involved and what are you talking about?
10:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Transportation Planning and Policy, New Westminster, TransLink
There are several. The Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum came together, which is the port, TransLink, Transport Canada in the facilitation role, as well as the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for the province. In light of the new GTCF funding, we did a bunch of work collaboratively to understand what the projects are for 2030 and grouped those into bundles to see how they work co-operatively to get better outcomes. There has been some modelling done in that regard. There's probably more that can be done.
We also have an urban freight council that uses those same players but expands that out to the GTCF, YVR and others to be able to understand what the different dynamics are. It looks at things like streamlined permitting, parking regulations, management elements, as well as what additions we need to do to the regional road network. Right now we're going to go through an expansion of about 10% as the region grows.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to really drill down on the—for lack of a better word—regional network. As you know, the trade corridors fund is being proposed. With that, the beneficiaries of that fund are going to be those who attach themselves to a broader trade corridor strategy.
I want to start off with Mr. Ollmann with the short-line operators, because you're probably the one who's most in need of that capital funding. The question is going to be broader to all four of you.
How are you folks working together more as a regional network to then be part of a broader local, national and even international trade corridor strategy, therefore creating net benefits from that partnership and/or the contributions from the trade corridor fund to then manage your assets and self-fund your capital projects through healthier, more disciplined annual operational contributions?
I'm sure CN gets that, because you try to do that every year. A lot of times you're strapped, and I'm sure, Mr. Ollmann, that you're definitely strapped.
First, how are you working together to create that network, that strategy? Second, how are you working together to have that ability to tap into that trade corridors fund because of the more networked environment you're creating versus the individual environment?
10:55 a.m.
President, Southern Railway of British Columbia
Southern Railway actually submitted two applications to the trade corridors fund. Neither made the cut, unfortunately. One was to fortify our Queensborough rail bridge. The other was to add additional capacity on Annacis Island, where our largest auto terminal is located. This auto terminal receives the majority of import autos that are distributed across the Canadian economy. We work with our class 1 partners to develop that first-mile, last-mile service. That's our integration towards the class 1 rail network.
Again, our strategy is to enable the remote industrial land base that is not contiguous to the class 1 corridor and allow those industrial properties to access the North American rail network.
10:55 a.m.
Director, Business Development, Canadian National Railway Company
We invest about 20% of our revenues annually. Derek mentioned 12%.
The projects that we have under the national trade corridors fund.... We've done a lot of coordination, as has CP, with the port of Vancouver. They've been very good about that. Our biggest issues are when we get toward the end of the line where we have five railways, urban encroachment and marine traffic influencing the utility of infrastructure because bridges have to open. This is where it becomes very complicated.
In the case of the north shore where the federal funding is going, one of the reasons why it's very difficult to put together a business case to fund $200 million for a capacity improvement is that, through federal legislation, we have to provide service to CP's traffic for a very low rate. Also, a good portion of the traffic on the north shore is regulated grain traffic, so the return on investment is extremely low. We see the availability of that fund as an offset to those things that are imposed on our ability to generate a return.
10:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Strategic Planning and Transportation Services, Canadian Pacific Railway
We've participated in the collaboration group in Vancouver. There's also the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council. We work with all of the Lower Mainland stakeholders. The submissions that were put forward by the port were reflective of all the input of all the stakeholders in the prioritization, and we were definitely one of the key players in that and helped to articulate their business case.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Even though you're rail, with respect to the different methods and modes of transportation—water, rail and road—where do you see the bottlenecks in your network?
11 a.m.
President, Southern Railway of British Columbia
Mine is much smaller than the class 1 railway network, but an example is the Fraser River rail bridge that Brad spoke about. I am one of the three freight operators over that rail bridge. It is very congested. It is not unsafe. It's just a bottleneck. Investing in that rail bridge would definitely increase velocity.
11 a.m.
Vice-President, Transportation Planning and Policy, New Westminster, TransLink
We have a number of roadway issues. I mentioned one. There is the South Fraser Perimeter Road, but there's a long-standing need for some better connection north of the Fraser.
The other piece that James referred to is that, clearly, we have an issue, and it will become larger, on the west coast—
11 a.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Can I stop you there? Thank you. I'm sorry, but I'm running low on time here.
Whose jurisdiction is roads?
11 a.m.
Vice-President, Transportation Planning and Policy, New Westminster, TransLink
That would be shared between us, the province and the municipalities.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
We heard this in Niagara as well, and the unfortunate part about it is that both provinces actually refused to come out and participate in this exercise. I find this very unfortunate because a lot of the jurisdictions are theirs. That's what we're here for. We're trying to take care of some of those bottlenecks.
First, have you discussed that with the province, and second, how can we participate in ultimately taking care of that road bottleneck?
11 a.m.
Vice-President, Transportation Planning and Policy, New Westminster, TransLink
We've discussed it with the province. It is a priority that they understand. Being part of the urban freight council in the gateway is a key role.
11 a.m.
Edmonton Riverbend, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here today.
I hope to get to two points, both with you, Mr. Clements. I would love to touch on Bill C-69 if we have an opportunity, but first I want to raise the other issue that you brought up with regard to my hometown of Edmonton: the 50 Street overpass. You called it an overpass. From what I understand, there's still the debate between an underpass and an overpass. Is it clear that it's an overpass?
11 a.m.
Vice-President, Strategic Planning and Transportation Services, Canadian Pacific Railway
No, the final engineering has not been done. The initial submission, I think, conceptualized it as an overpass, but the decisions need to be finalized.
11 a.m.
Edmonton Riverbend, CPC
I heard you say “overpass”, so I thought that maybe you were scooping some of the announcement. I know it was supposed to be done this summer, but it still hasn't been done.
With regard to CP's involvement, obviously being in Edmonton and growing up on that particular side of the city where I waited for the train at length at times, I know about that piece of your involvement in the line. However, with regard to the funding, can you walk me through...? I don't think you provided any funding, but were you part of some of the decision-making when it was announced?
