Thank you.
This is going to be a bit different from the first section. I hope it provokes some interesting conversation.
My position is that the railroad, and particularly the Canadian Pacific Railroad, was a P3 project that physically built the nation of Canada. Today we require significantly lower-carbon approaches to almost every component of modern life if we are to survive and thrive as a continentally scaled project of civilization in an age of increasing climate instability. Like the bicycle, the railroad is an old-school transportation technology that must play a renewed role in this future. Put another way, the railroad must be as important to Canada 100 years from now as it was 100 years ago.
Safety is a key consideration of how to better fit this old technology into modern life at a moment of significant and contested change in what modern life actually means. If we fail to understand the change proposition that's before us, it's very likely we will get the question of safety wrong.
Our experience at the City of Calgary offers a great case study in what this means, particularly as we work to reconcile today's approaches to rail safety with the lower-carbon, transit-oriented city building of tomorrow that we need.
The same way the railroad established Canada as a series of settlements at station areas networked along the route with vast swaths of farmland and wilderness in between, our original approach to building our larger settlements followed the same pattern at a smaller scale. Streetcar networks linked neighbourhood centres to each other and to industrial working landscapes. Across Canada today, these streetcar-developed downtowns, so-called streetcar suburbs, and industrial landscapes represent some of the most productive, valuable, desirable and low-carbon parts of our cities and towns.
The city of Calgary is extremely representative of this phenomenon. Eighty-five per cent of our city has been built since the end of World War II, in conjunction with the rise of the automobile and the decline of the railroad. The 15% representing the earlier transit-oriented city built by the streetcar significantly outperforms the automobile-scaled city across the social, environmental, public health, economic and fiscal spectrums. Therefore, our approach to the future is to retrofit our automobile-scaled city into a transit-oriented city of great neighbourhoods, driven by federally supported projects like the Green Line.
Challengingly, as we began planning for the Green Line over five years ago, with community-involved, station-area, city-shaping planning exercises—and due to the Green Line's proximity to and in some cases use of active heavy rail right-of-ways—we ran amok of rail safety policies. This conflict was significantly more sensitive due to the recency of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. On the one hand, we were looking at a safety best practice of a 30-metre setback from these corridors. That's a 200-foot-wide corridor along much of the line. On the other hand, we had a lower-carbon future of mixed-use transit-served neighbourhoods that desperately needed this valuable real estate to build this future.
We had a very big conversation about safety and risk. When we ran the actual numbers, it became clear that our default setting, which would be protecting our population from high-impact but very low-frequency event disasters, like Lac-Mégantic, was actually much less safe an outcome, as we were therefore subjecting our population to a very high frequency of lower-impact events, ranging from the propinquity of automobile accidents to the long-term effects of sedentary lifestyles and a significantly higher contribution to climate change.
Our solution was to build a very thoughtful safety and risk profile all along the line, armouring against derailments where derailments might actually occur and limiting access but protecting access for emergency response and repairs. The 200 feet of dead zone shrank considerably, into a much safer and more usable corridor. Speed limits according to the environment and risk profile were also critical to these considerations.
The city of the automobile, which is the city of climate change, is predicated on a discrete segregation of uses and components of the city. A transit-oriented city, which is the city of climate action, requires a robust and thoughtful mix of uses. “The age of the 3,000-mile Caesar salad”, as James Howard Kunstler puts it, must end. Canadians need to eat food that's produced much closer to home. We must use goods that are produced much closer to home. The railroad must play a much more integrated role in our cities and towns moving forward, much like it used to, but with much more sensitivity than we exercised in the past. This requires a better understanding of risk and an evolved understanding of safety.
As a final note, dangerous goods transport and conflict between trains and other users are obviously key components of safety, but air quality is also critical. Hydrogen and/or electrification offer longer-term solutions, but diesel blends that reduce total fuel consumption and complex hydrocarbon emissions are a critical short-term path that we must explore as well.
Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.