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.