Transport Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 99 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, the committee is meeting to study the projects of high frequency rail and to discuss committee business.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to our interpreters and can cause serious injury. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. I'm therefore asking all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling their earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters, I invite all participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they're not in use.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses for today, colleagues.

Appearing as an individual is Yonah Freemark from the Urban Institute He is a lead, with a practice area on fair housing, land use and transportation. He is joining us by video conference. Welcome.

We have, as an individual, Ryan Katz-Rosene, associate professor in the school of political studies at the University of Ottawa. Welcome to you.

From the Quebec Employers' Council, we have Mr. Karl Blackburn, president and chief executive officer, who is joining us by video conference, as well as Norma Kozhaya, vice-president of research and chief economist, who is also appearing by video conference.

We'll begin with opening remarks of five minutes each.

For those, I will turn the floor over to you, Yonah Freemark.

[Dr. Yonah Freemark, Lead, Practice Area on Fair Housing, Land Use and Transportation, Urban Institute, As an Individual]

Thank you for having me here today. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the high-frequency rail project.

My name is Yonah Freemark. I hold a Ph.D. in urban studies and have been researching topics related to transportation, land use and housing for 15 years. I speak here as an individual researcher, not as a representative of my employer, the Urban Institute, which does not take positions on specific policies.

In undertaking its rail project, which I will hereafter refer to as HFR, Canada is taking a major step forward in improving train service for the populations of Ontario and Quebec. This comes after decades of underinvestment.

In my research, I have demonstrated that Canada's per capita rail investment has been the lowest of all G7 members in every year but one since at least 1995. In recent decades, its investment levels have been less than half, and sometimes as low as one-tenth, of the levels of those in countries like France, Italy and Japan.

This underinvestment has consequences. Rail ridership in Canada is extremely low compared to that in other G7 nations, with the average Canadian taking an intercity rail trip just once every 10 years. That compares to rail travel in a country like Germany, where the average resident takes 25 intercity rail trips a year.

Lack of rail system use in turn has negative impacts on Canada's society, environment and economy. Unavailability of frequent, rapid and affordable intercity rail access limits the ability of people without a car, with inadequate funds to afford a flight, or living far from an airport to move around the country. It forces residents to travel to airports far from the centre of population. The nation's dependence on flights and cars has resulted in Canada having some of the highest per capita transportation sector carbon emissions in the world—up to three times as high as in peer countries. Poor rail service has limited the ability of Canada's major cities to capitalize on the agglomeration effects of concentrating rail service in the country's downtowns.

The government's proposed HFR project would improve service considerably along the Toronto-Quebec corridor, expanding options for residents of those cities and also for residents of Ottawa, Montreal and other cities along the way.

My review of comparable corridors in other countries shows that rail lines serving similarly large metropolitan areas feature far more frequent rail service than Via provides today, suggesting the benefits of such improvements. Those benefits would be particularly useful in the Toronto-to-Montreal, via Ottawa, section of the corridor, where flights currently dominate the market.

Nonetheless, my examination of evidence from international examples suggests that the HFR project would fail to live up to the full potential of the central segment of the line, whose length and distribution of metropolitan areas is similar to those of the Paris-Marseille, Madrid-Barcelona and Milan-Naples corridors. Thanks to considerable investment in high-speed rail infrastructure to allow travel at speeds up to 300 kilometres per hour, those routes operate at far higher average speeds than those proposed for Canada after the completion of the HFR project.

This difference in average speeds is very important for attracting riders away from polluting, expensive flights. Based on evidence from corridors around the world, the HFR project may be expected to increase the rail share of the market on the Toronto-to-Montreal segment to between 30% and 60%. However, an investment in faster high-speed rail service could expand that market share to 70% to 90%.

High-speed rail service would make most air travel from Toronto and Montreal to Ottawa superfluous. This investment could allow a significant reduction in the number of flights operating in this segment of the corridor and reduce carbon emissions in the process.

I encourage the committee to consider the potential missed opportunity of not investing in a truly rapid high-speed rail service in Canada, particularly along the Toronto-to-Montreal segment via Ottawa.

Thank you. I look forward to discussion with the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Freemark.

Next we go to Mr. Katz-Rosene. The floor is yours.

[Professor Ryan Katz-Rosene, Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you so much for the invitation to participate. It's really an honour to be here.

I want to start by relaying a cautionary tale for how rail infrastructure megaprojects could go wrong, drawing from a new book by one of the world's leading experts on megaprojects and risk, Professor Bent Flyvbjerg.

In 2008, Californians approved a proposed high-speed train that would connect Los Angeles and San Francisco—about 600 kilometres apart—in just two and a half hours. The project was expected to cost $33 billion and would be completed by the year 2020. Work began, but shortly thereafter it hit snags. Cost estimates soared first to $43 billion, then $68 billion, then $77 billion and then $83 billion. As of the writing of the book, one estimate pegged the expected full cost of the project at $100 billion.

Today the state plans to complete only the middle segment of the train line between the towns of Merced and Bakersfield. This may end up saving the state about $80 billion, but many now consequently dub this project “the bullet train to nowhere”, as the train will not come within 150 kilometres of either LA or San Francisco.

How do we make sure that high-frequency rail avoids becoming another story like this, and how do we make sure that new rail infrastructure contributes to societal goals like climate change mitigation? I've been thinking about some of these questions for over a decade since I wrote my Ph.D. on the environmental-political economy of high-speed rail development in Canada, and I have a few ideas to share.

My first is that I would advise seeking political consensus on the primary objectives of this project and let those objectives guide the government like a beacon throughout. What is the main objective of HFR? Is it to modernize Canada's passenger rail system? Is it to that ensure affordable intercity transport options are available to a growing population? Is it to reduce congestion? Is it to divert traffic away from more polluting modes? Is it to generate regional growth opportunities? Is it to help tackle climate change? Is it to reduce travel times in the corridor? Is it to support 21st century nation building, and so on?

It's important to get on the same page about what the government's priorities are; otherwise, there's a risk of project failure as the years go on and as political change inevitably follows. The inconvenient truth is that some of these objectives may actually be incompatible, so an “all of the above” approach response is unrealistic.

Second, my colleague Professor Flyvbjerg's advice is to plan out every detail before you get shovels in the ground, so “think slow and act fast” is the mantra. This means taking the time to thoroughly plan and budget everything down to the last rivet before jumping into the delivery phase.

Transport megaprojects, especially rail projects, are notorious for spiralling into a break-fix cycle in which time is diverted toward trying to fix small mistakes that continue to arise as a result of a lack of planning. Maybe the O-Train comes to mind for those of you who are in the Ottawa area.

Finally, my advice would be, if it's not already too late, to utilize the existing structure of Via Rail as a Crown entity to support the government's advantage rather than approaching this as a public-private partnership, a P3. Keep the ownership and operation of the HFR line within the public sphere. This doesn't mean no involvement for the private sector. Rather, one of the three private consortia in the procurement process should be contracted as a master builder to bring the project to fruition, an entity with experience and a proven track record of success.

I am well aware of the motivations for seeking out a P3. Chief among them is the belief that costs to the taxpayer can be minimized by sharing the expense with private capital. However, the scholarly research on P3s suggests that the model could pose greater risk of cost overruns and project delays and could further limit the ability of the government to use the project to achieve broader public objectives. Failing to meet those objectives, in turn, could also translate into costs for the Canadian public down the line.

In the interest of time, I'll leave it there, and I look forward to the discussion.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Katz-Rosene.

We'll continue with you, Mr. Blackburn. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Karl Blackburn, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Employers' Council]

Thank you.

The Quebec Employers' Council, or CPQ, would like to thank the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for the opportunity to share its insights and recommendations as part of the study on projects of high frequency rail between Quebec City and Toronto.

For the CPQ, sustainable mobility is a key part of our collective prosperity, given its impact on our economy—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Blackburn, but Mr. Bachrach has a point of order.

Mr. Bachrach, is there a problem with the interpretation?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There was near the beginning. I was getting French and I was getting no interpretation. Then, I think just as you called that stop, it started in English again.

Perhaps if he could just start from the top, that would be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

Mr. Blackburn, now that the interpretation is working properly, could you please start again?

[Karl Blackburn]

Certainly.

The Quebec Employers' Council, or CPQ, would like to thank the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for the opportunity to share its insights and recommendations as part of the study on projects of high frequency rail between Quebec City and Toronto.

For the CPQ, sustainable mobility is a key part of our collective prosperity, given its impact on our economy, environment and society.

We need an efficient link between Quebec City and Toronto to significantly improve mobility in Canada's most populous corridor and to meet future transportation needs.

For the CPQ, speed—which shortens travel time—is clearly a key requirement for boosting the appeal of rail travel and the impact of the project, alongside the basic requirements of reliability, safety and comfort. Speed is a vital way to truly shift behaviour towards modal transportation, in particular the switch from cars to trains. Right now, only 2% of all trips in the corridor are by passenger rail service, compared with 94% by car. A fast link would also help increase travel volume and attract new users.

This project would have a number of benefits. It would bring Canada's two largest cities, two provincial capitals and the national capital much closer together. This would make it easier for people to travel for business, tourism, education or personal reasons. Of course, it would also increase business opportunities.

The switch from car to train would reduce the use of highway infrastructure and, by the same token, maintenance costs. There would also be fewer accidents and collisions.

From an environmental perspective, the emission of greenhouse gases, or GHGs, must be reduced in the transportation sector so that Quebec and Canada can achieve their ambitious GHG emission reduction targets.

The incorporation of a speed requirement, which aligns with a high‑frequency rail project, would maximize the project's economic, social and environmental impact. Moreover, in cost‑benefit analyses of transportation projects—a decision‑making methodology used to assess the timeliness or social and economic return of a project—shorter travel times are among the main benefits.

The CPQ is aware of budget considerations. It also believes that long‑term planning and a cost assessment of new infrastructure projects that includes long‑term operating and maintenance costs are needed to ensure sustainable mobility funding and to inform decisions. Right now, we don't know the high‑frequency or high‑speed rail costs. This makes this morning's task rather challenging. However, according to the experts and based on international experience, the cost of a high‑speed train per kilometre or per passenger‑kilometre could be less exorbitant than expected and reasonable given the anticipated benefits and clear increase in the appeal and use of a new link. The cost could hover around $51 million Canadian per kilometre, based on the cost of 35 million euros per kilometre for the extension of the TGV network in France to link Bordeaux and Toulouse. The Quebec City-Toronto corridor has demographic and geographic features that make a high‑speed train an appealing option.

The potential ridership is substantial. Estimates from 2021 predicted that passenger volume would reach 17 million by 2059, compared with the current four million. With a high‑speed train, this figure should be even higher. Given the recent significant population growth in Canada, the heightened environmental awareness and the new recreational activity preferences, it would be reasonable to expect greater passenger and travel volumes.

It will be crucial to promote intermodality with other modes of transportation and good integration with existing intra‑city transportation systems, such as the Réseau express métropolitain in Montreal. Since the train certainly can't stop everywhere, it will also be necessary to ensure good connections with regional modes of transportation.

In closing, the CPQ supports a project to build a high‑speed—and possibly also high frequency—train that would truly meet sustainable mobility goals and bring the cities involved closer together.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Blackburn.

We'll now begin our first round.

Mr. Muys, you have the floor.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you.

First, Mr. Freemark, I know you submitted a very lengthy and interesting brief to the committee as well. Thank you for that.

You talked in your testimony about the differences between high-frequency rail and high-speed rail and whether the speed was too slow. Certainly, in previous testimony at this committee on this study, we've asked that question: Is the incremental difference in speed in this corridor worth the cost? I guess I'd ask that question to you for your comment.

[Dr. Yonah Freemark]

I think that's a very valid question. Certainly the speeds that are being proposed for the high-frequency rail, at least as far as I interpret the current plans, which are preliminary, would improve the average speed between Toronto and Montreal to 130 kilometres per hour. It's not slow, and it is certainly much faster than the current service.

However, compared to what we see in European countries that have invested in high-speed rail, it is quite slow. Just to give you some examples, between Paris and Lyon, trains average 202 kilometres per hour. It's dramatically faster over that distance. Between Paris and Marseille, they average 215 kilometres per hour. The difference is key to explaining ridership on the corridor.

When we've looked comparatively at rail systems around the world, what we've found is that there is a dramatic improvement in ridership once the rail service between two cities goes below three hours. What's currently being proposed for the high-frequency rail project is service of about four hours—maybe three and a half hours, if we're lucky—to connect Toronto and Montreal. That is an improvement over the current situation, but it would not provoke a massive mode shift away from cars and flights of the kind that we've seen in corridors where high-speed rail has been integrated.

From my perspective, if we are thinking about the investment in the line as a once-in-a-lifetime investment, we have to be thinking of what it means to be choosing essentially to build a project that will intentionally not attract a large share of people out of cars and out of flights. From a cost-benefit perspective, that means decades of increased carbon emissions, decades of reduced accessibility between Canada's two largest metropolitan areas and decades of congestion in the airports.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

We asked the president of VIA HFR whether there was a business case and what the ridership might be looking forward, and there weren't any answers, frankly. I'm gathering from your comments just now that the high-frequency model is not going to achieve that tipping point of three hours that you say would increase the ridership and therefore have a business case, so it's really setting itself up for failure.

[Dr. Yonah Freemark]

My sense is that the evidence from other countries is that the high-frequency rail system could increase the overall share of the market to between 30% and 60%. There's a large amount of variability there, because we see different outcomes in different countries, but if you were to move to a high-speed rail system with average speeds similar to what we see in European countries that would allow travel times of between two and a half and three hours between Toronto and Montreal, you could see rail take an average of an 80% market share along that corridor. There would be a much greater ridership response to that type of investment, based on international examples.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Okay. I have a minute left, so let me ask this.

We have a project proposed here with costs that would be borne by taxpayers across the country and that, frankly, would benefit taxpayers and commuters in one region of the country.

From your perspective, are there other areas of the country—whether that be Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver—that are potential routes that should be looked at for this sort of train?

[Dr. Yonah Freemark]

I think it is totally reasonable to think that the Calgary-Edmonton corridor is potentially investment-worthy for the nation. It features large metropolitan areas with 1.5 million people each that are located within quite a reasonable travel time. I believe trains could travel that corridor within two hours of one another. That would allow for 90% or more market share between Calgary and Edmonton, which would be a dramatic change, given that there's currently no rail service, as far as I know, between those two metropolitan areas.

In addition, the Calgary-Edmonton corridor has some advantages over the Toronto-Montreal corridor just in terms of investment, because it is over land that features fewer geographic obstacles, so it could be cheaper to build per mile or kilometre.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Muys.

If the committee will permit, I have a follow-up question for Mr. Freemark.

Mr. Freemark, do you see the weather in Canada being a factor in inhibiting the development of high-speed rail versus high-frequency rail?

Based on the information that you've been able to gather on countries around the world that have done this, do you have examples of countries that have done it in areas like Edmonton and Calgary, which are very cold and have lots of snow? Do you have any examples you could provide that would be helpful in better understanding whether or not this is feasible in a country with a climate like Canada's?

Thank you.

[Dr. Yonah Freemark]

Certainly Canada has some of the coldest weather in the world. That said, we have seen considerable investment in improved rail service in corridors like Moscow-St. Petersburg, northern sections of Japan and parts of South Korea, all of which have very cold weather.

Also, the Chinese high-speed rail network extends to every part of that nation, including large portions of the country that are very far north and thus experience many of the weather concerns that Canada experiences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Dr. Freemark. Thank you, colleagues, for your indulgence.

Ms. Koutrakis, the floor is yours.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before the TRAN committee this morning.

I'll start off with my first questions to Mr. Freemark.

I think it's a great segue to your question, Mr. Chair.

When it comes to the future of transportation and its infrastructure, where do you believe governments, regardless of the level, should be investing in regard to moving people safely and efficiently? Given all of the climate challenges and terrain challenges, where should governments be investing?

[Dr. Yonah Freemark]

From the perspective of responding to climate change, we absolutely must see a shift of people out of cars and out of planes. There are some clear reasons for that.

One is that there is overwhelming evidence that automobiles and planes pollute at far higher levels both in terms of particulate pollution and in terms of carbon pollution than do trains, especially when those trains are electrified. From the perspective of responding to climate change, we absolutely must see a shift of people out of cars and planes.

That is even true when we think about electrifying individual cars because, number one, that electrification process is going to take several decades to be complete; number two, the cost of electrification is substantial in terms of the mineral resources required; number three, you still have this problem of particulate pollution on the surrounding communities produced by tire and brake wear from cars. All these issues together suggest that there's a real environmental reason to invest in rail service all around the world in virtually every country.

From an economic perspective, there are clear reasons to invest in rail as well. We have seen amazing evidence from all over the world that investment in improved rail service results in concentration of investment in existing areas like the downtowns of our cities. That concentration of investment is also good for the environment, because it means less sprawl in suburban areas or in currently agricultural or natural areas.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Also, in many European cities, intercity train stations are located just outside the downtown areas, but they are usually very well connected to the transit system as a whole. Is that something we need to make sure to reinforce when the HFR project moves forward?

I'm wondering if you could comment on that, Mr. Freemark.

Mr. Blackburn, you can also share your thoughts.

[Dr. Yonah Freemark]

I can try to answer quickly.

It is absolutely necessary to ensure that the rail system is connected to effective urban transit solutions. In the case of the Toronto-to-Quebec corridor, obviously Montreal and Toronto have effective subway systems and metro systems that are able to connect people to the existing railway terminus. I would say cities like Quebec, Trois-Rivières and Peterborough do not have particularly effective urban rail services at the moment—or any urban rail services at the moment. Considering how those could be connected to a future intercity rail system seems very important.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Blackburn, could you provide some insight on this topic?