Introduction

High Frequency Rail (HFR) is a proposed passenger rail network that would operate in the Toronto to Quebec City Corridor. In discussion for several years, it was mentioned in Budget 2018, which allocated $8 million over three years to continue an in-depth assessment of a proposal by VIA Rail.^[1]

The Government of Canada issued a news release on 6 July 2021 to announce the procurement process for this project, which it described as “the largest transportation infrastructure project seen by Canada in decades.”^[2] VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc (VIA HFR), is a Crown corporation that was established in December 2022 to “manage the development” of the project.^[3]

On 7 March 2023, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (the Committee), agreed to the following motion:

That the committee undertake a study of the government’s proposed high frequency rail (HFR) project between Quebec City and Toronto, as well as the projects of high frequency train between Calgary and Banff, and between Calgary and Edmonton, examining the advantages and disadvantages of the various options, including high frequency rail (HFR), in terms of ridership, route, stations, connectivity and cost. That the committee hold a minimum of four meetings on this study.

However, on 18 September 2023, the Committee agreed to extend the study.

While the motion calling for this study included an examination of passenger rail projects in Alberta, the bulk of witness testimony focused on the ongoing high frequency rail project in the Toronto to Quebec City Corridor. This focus is reflected in the report.

In total, the Committee held six meetings to study high frequency rail (HFR) in the Corridor between 20 September 2023 and 29 February 2024. It heard from 33 witnesses and received four briefs.

Potential Benefits of Improved Passenger Rail Service

In discussing the need for a high frequency rail service in the Toronto–Quebec City Corridor, Martin Imbleau, Chief Executive Officer of VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc, summarized the current situation as follows: “that corridor between three capitals—two of the largest cities—does not have an adequate train service, which is desperately needed.” Other witnesses also mentioned the concentration of population along this linear stretch of land, and the need to ensure adequate transportation capacity to meet both current and future needs.^[4] Many more indicated their belief that improved rail connectivity would have a clear economic benefit,^[5] with some witnesses suggesting a positive impact on the Canadian economy as a whole.^[6]

More concretely, the Committee heard that improved regional connectivity would result in significant social benefits, allowing easier and more frequent contact with friends and family,^[7] connections to (and between) education and knowledge centres,^[8] as well as increased tourism.^[9] Several witnesses also spoke to the potential benefits for businesses, not only in terms of faster and more productive travel time,^[10] but also in gaining access to an expanded and more fluid labour pool through fast and reliable commuting options.^[11] Mario Péloquin, President and Chief Executive Officer of VIA Rail Canada Inc., pointed to the example of high-speed rail services in France and suggested that the proposed High Frequency Rail network would have a similar effect of allowing workers to commute larger distances into cities.

Patrick Massicotte, President of the Chambre de commerce et d’industries de Trois-Rivières, and Marc Brazeau, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Railway Association of Canada, told the Committee that improved passenger rail service in general would result in reduced congestion in urban centres by providing a more attractive alternative to travel by car. Karl Blackburn, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Quebec Employers’ Council, added that this would result in fewer accidents and collisions, while also reducing the usage (and therefore the maintenance costs) of highway infrastructure. It would also, according to the testimony of several witnesses, have a significant impact in reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.^[12]

Mr. Péloquin stated that trains produce fewer carbon emissions than the equivalent aircraft or approximately 250 cars needed to transport the same number of people the same distance. Meanwhile, Yonah Freemark, Lead of the Practice Area on Fair Housing, Land Use and Transportation, Urban Institute (appearing as an individual) told the Committee that Canada’s “dependence on flights and cars,” which he claimed to be the result of a lack of adequate rail service, “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.” Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Professor, Chair in Energy Sector Management at HEC Montréal, (appearing as an individual) also lamented a lack of alternatives and estimated that rail is much easier and less expensive to electrify than planes or cars “in the medium-term”.

According to some witnesses, long-term underfunding of passenger rail in Canada is to blame for a current lack of adequate service along the Toronto to Quebec City Corridor.^[13] Indeed, Dr. Freemark told the Committee that his research has 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,” with investment levels “less than half, and sometimes as low as one-tenth” those of France, Italy, or Japan.

Sharing Tracks with Freight

VIA Rail passenger trains currently operate mainly on rail lines owned by the freight companies Canadian National Railway (CN) and Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. (CPKC). As several witnesses told the Committee, having both freight and passenger trains sharing tracks has had substantial negative impacts on VIA Rail’s on-time performance.^[14] It also, as Mr. Imbleau explained, presents a barrier to increasing the frequency of passenger trains along the corridor:

[I]t's no longer possible to add trains to the current corridor because the tracks belong to someone else. Consequently, even though we want people to take the train instead of their cars, there's no room for more passengers. We would have to prioritize passengers over freight, which is virtually impossible on tracks that now belong to other railway companies. We therefore have to build something new.

Dr. Freemark indicated that a separate, dedicated line for passenger trains would allow for a “substantial increase in freight movement along the line,” which would be of significant benefit considering ongoing increases in demand for freight rail traffic.^[15] Eric Harvey, Assistant General Counsel, Policy and Legislative Affairs, for the Canadian National Railway Company, echoed this point and further explained that conflicts arise as passenger trains operate at higher speeds (at times, nearly double) compared to freight trains. This complicates the task of coordinating traffic and arrival times on shared tracks. He added that CN shoulders a disproportionate burden, in that VIA Rail trains operate much more on CN tracks than on those owned by CPKC.

As Mr. Imbleau clarified, however, the intention is not to completely remove VIA Rail passenger service from shared tracks. Rather, existing service would continue while the new High Frequency Rail project would operate in parallel on its own tracks, thereby allowing increased frequency for passenger rail without increasing the “burden” on freight operators.

Process: The High Frequency Rail Project

Vincent Robitaille, Assistant Deputy Minister, High Frequency Rail, with the Department of Transport, described the High Frequency Rail project as having five phases:

• 1)      the initial review of an existing proposal by VIA Rail Canada;
• 2)      the (current) procurement phase;
• 3)      the co-development phase;
• 4)      the actual construction of the project; and
• 5)      the operations and maintenance of a delivered high frequency rail service.

Phase One: Review of Existing Proposal by VIA Rail Canada

As Mr. Robitaille noted, the first phase of the project took place from 2017 to 2021. In fact, some witnesses noted that some form of project aiming to improve passenger rail service along the Windsor to Quebec City corridor (whether in terms of speed or frequency, and in a variety of routes) has been in discussion for many years, or even decades.^[16]

Indeed, prior to the development of the current High Frequency Rail project, VIA Rail Canada had already undertaken studies to determine the feasibility of a high-frequency rail service. Terence Johnson, President of Transport Action Canada, told the Committee that VIA Rail had a ridership forecast, a business plan, and an infrastructure assessment—efforts and expenses which, in his view, have since been wasted. He explained that High Frequency Rail as it was initially announced “was supposed to quickly triage Canada's ability to run trains on time and operate enough trains to meet demand, putting Via Rail Canada back on a sound financial footing and getting it ready to build on that foundation across the country.” The project, according to him, “was decision-ready by summer of 2018” and could have been in service by 2025. He lamented that the Government of Canada “hesitated” and instead chose to create a joint project office “with a mandate to de-risk the project and a budget of $71 million.”

Mr. Robitaille confirmed to the Committee that preliminary work was undertaken following VIA Rail’s proposal, including “engineering studies performed by firms like Aecon and Arup, as well as the contracts with Ernst & Young.” He also confirmed that $18 million had been paid to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) for these services, which had been subcontracted through the CIB. When asked how Transport Canada ensures that companies that worked on preliminary studies don’t have an advantage over other bidders in the Request for Proposals (RFP) process, he responded that all information gathered for this type of preliminary work is made available to all RFP bidders, to ensure that “everybody has access to the same information.”

For her part, Jennifer Murray, Director, Atlantic Region, for Unifor, viewed “the current process as a delay tactic, as a way to involve more consultants, repeating the studies that have already been done, to build something we already know how to build, a delay because it is an expensive project and there is a constant fear of spending big money.”

Phase Two: Procurement

The second, and current, phase of the project was announced in the Government of Canada’s Budget 2022.^[17] The government also established a new Crown corporation, VIA HFR—VIA TGF Inc., in 2022 to serve both as project delivery office for the project and as technical and commercial adviser during the procurement phase. While it is a subsidiary, VIA HFR is meant to be kept “at arm’s length” from VIA Rail Canada.^[18] Mr. Imbleau described VIA HFR’s current role as “to handle the procurement phase, jointly with our Transport Canada colleague”.

The purpose of the procurement phase is to select a private partner with which the Government of Canada (through VIA HFR) will co-develop the project.^[19] A request for qualifications was launched in February 2023, and in July of that year, three consortia were selected and invited to participate in the RFP: Cadence (CDPQ Infra, SNC-Lavalin, Systra Canada, and Keolis Canada); Intercity Rail Developers (Intercity Development Partners, EllisDon Capital, Kilmer Transportation, First Rail Holdings, Jacobs, Hatch, CIMA+, First Group, RATP Dev Canada, and Renfe Operadora); and QConnexiON Rail Partners (Fengate, John Laing, Bechtel, WSP Canada, and Deutsche Bahn).^[20]

The three bidding teams are expected to provide their proposals in the summer of 2024, with evaluation of the proposals to be complete in late 2024. Proposals must include two possible approaches to meet the project’s objectives: one with speeds of up to 200 km/h and one with some high-speed segments to reduce overall travel time.^[21]

The details of the project therefore remain undefined, as the three consortia prepare their own proposals for meeting the government’s objectives, with further analysis and deliberation expected after the selection of the private co-developer. On 16 December 2022, then-Minister of Transport, Omar Alghabra, provided a mandate letter to VIA HFR’s Board Chair, Rob Prichard. This letter, which is included as Appendix 1 to VIA HFR’s 2023–24—2027–28 Corporate Plan and 2023–24 Operating Budget, describes the High Frequency Rail project as creating “a faster, more frequent, more reliable rail service among Québec City, Trois-Rivières, Montréal, Ottawa, Peterborough, and Toronto.”^[22]

Mr. Imbleau described the objective as building “a train that is as frequent, as fast, as reliable and as economical as possible”, clarifying that the methods used to achieve this goal will be defined later in the process, in collaboration with the selected private codeveloper. Mr. Robitaille similarly told the Committee that “the objective of HFR is to offer faster, more reliable and more frequent rail service.”

Mr. Robitaille also confirmed that, as of 11 October 2023, the Government of Canada has spent over $28 million on contractors, a number which he indicated “would be expected […] given the size and scope of this project.” When asked about measures being taken to ensure proper budget management throughout the High Frequency Rail project, he replied that the establishment of VIA HFR was the first step: “It is essential to have the best experts on our side to manage the project over the long term.” He added that competition throughout the process would also serve to control costs.

Phase Three: Co-Development

Mr. Imbleau explained to the Committee that VIA HFR’s role following the procurement phase will be to “take over supervision of the work that's done” and “co‑develop the project with a private partner so we can select solutions, make sure they are economic and identify the right trade-offs.” The Crown corporation will then make a final recommendation for the High Frequency Rail project, following which it is expected that both the Government of Canada and the private partner will invest in the project, in proportions to be determined. He added that VIA HFR is expected “to build extensive expertise in all fields so we can be a supervisor, manager and watchdog […] to protect the money that's invested in this project and to make the best choices for the coming decades.”

Public Private Partnerships in Construction

Witnesses held a range of views on the merits and drawbacks of developing the High Frequency Rail project in conjunction with a private partner. Labour representatives in particular were explicit in their opposition to the project in its current form. Joel Kennedy, National Rail Director of Unifor, with the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITWF), stated “we don't support the government's proposal on HFR”. Ms. Murray and Bruno Dobrusin, Manager of the Urban Transport Department of the ITWF, both recommended that the government review the current High Frequency Rail project’s structure in favour of a fully public approach. Mr. Kennedy further suggested that it would be “irresponsible” to pursue the project, given the opposition of the main labour unions representing passenger train operators.

Ms. Murray explained the concerns of both Unifor and the ITWF with public-private partnerships (PPPs or P3s) in general, and particularly in the transportation sector. These, she suggested, are more costly to the taxpayer than public projects, given the commercial interests involved. Ryan Katz-Rosene, Associate Professor with the School of Political Studies of the University of Ottawa (appearing as an individual), also expressed concerns that “a private firm has a fiduciary responsibility to obtain profits.” This responsibility, according to him, can result in reduced accountability, cost-cutting measures that impact safety, and higher user fees, all of which may ultimately reduce the competitiveness of the service with other modes of transportation and negatively impact its overall effectiveness. He added that research has indicated that private projects and P3s “have a higher risk of project failure, which means that government comes in afterward and essentially has to pay more.” Mr. Dobrusin echoed this concern:

The evidence is they end up paying more. I think the example of the U.K. may be one of the most tangible for us to see. After 30 years of rail privatization and public-private partnership projects all over its rail system, it's now one of the most expensive rails in Europe, not just to operate but for the passengers. It also has worse working conditions for workers when compared to other systems, like the French or the German ones, which have remained in public hands.

Other witnesses also pointed to the U.K. as a cautionary example of developing passenger rail.^[23] However, Graeme Hampshire, Project Director with VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc., disagreed with these characterisations of the U.K. experience:

I think one needs a balanced approach here. One needs to take the best of the public sector that we've seen in Europe and the best of the private sector. I don't quite share the doomsday scenario presented by my colleague [sitting to my] left concerning U.K. rail because I was involved in that for a number of years. There were significant benefits from involving the private sector. The model has now moved on. The model has matured, and we can learn lessons from that, I think.

In contrast, Mr. Dobrusin pointed to successful publicly-funded high-speed rail systems in Germany, Spain, and South Korea, which he said have delivered “reduced travel times, economic development and improved connectivity.” Graham Cox, National Representative for Unifor, agreed with this positive assessment of public passenger rail systems in Spain and Germany, pointing to the presence of two state-owned companies (Renfe Operadora and Deutsche Bahn) from these countries among the three bidding teams for the High Frequency Rail project. Dr. Freemark noted that “Spain has some of the lowest high-speed rail infrastructure costs in the world, which is interesting, because it is true that it has taken a purely public sector approach.” Ms. Murray suggested that the potential involvement of these “two state-owned European rail companies just shows how ridiculous the notion that we need private sector expertise is.”

Concerns regarding diminished working conditions, wages, and attention to health and safety were expressed both with respect to P3s in general,^[24] and specifically regarding some of the companies associated with the three consortia bidding for the High Frequency Rail project. Mr. Dobrusin, when asked about the record of these bidders, suggested that even publicly owned entities operate very differently internationally than they do in their home country, particularly with regards to labour relations and safety issues. He specifically expressed concerns regarding the Spanish-owned operator Renfe. He added, however, that public entities might have more “familiarity” in interacting with multiple levels of government than would private actors and suggested that this is demonstrated in Europe by “stronger control of state-led companies.”

Ms. Murray suggested that, by privatizing the construction and maintenance of large, costly, nation-building infrastructure, particularly to foreign companies, “we forgo a significant part of the economic benefits of building rail and further divide our rail system.”

According to Dr. Freemark, “the key issues—more than who is ultimately building or managing the line—are transparency, and assurances from the government that the government is controlling the day-to-day project design, planning and construction.” Insufficient public sector involvement, he feared, would likely result in cost escalations and problematic design changes. That being said, he did not agree that a P3 approach would be “necessarily wrong,” but rather he disagreed with the idea that P3s “will definitively produce a project more cheaply and more quickly than a public entity would.”

Prof. Katz-Rosene recommended contracting one of the three private consortia “as a master builder to bring the (High Frequency Rail) project to fruition, an entity with experience and a proven track record of success,” while restructuring the overall project to utilise VIA Rail “to support the government’s advantage” and help it “to achieve broader public objectives.”

Friedemann Brockmeyer, director of civity Management Consultants GmbH & Co. KG, presented Austria and Switzerland as positive international examples despite having different operational models, as Switzerland’s federal railways are operated by a single national operator, while Austria has two “very successful” operators: one state-owned and one private. Their key to success, he suggested, lies in a long-term approach to planning. Norma Kozhaya, Vice-President of Research and Chief Economist of the Quebec Employers’ Council, also pointed out that there are examples of both successful and failed P3 projects:

It is important to have an effective link between Quebec City and Toronto or other cities, as the case may be. I also believe that a public‑private partnership can reduce the risk and cost of public debt, because public debt has a cost. We can draw inspiration from examples that have worked elsewhere, but there are examples that have not worked.

Mr. Blackburn supported the mixed approach between private and public sectors, pointing to successful P3s in Quebec “including the Autoroute 25 bridge (and) Autoroute 30.” Marco D’Angelo, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Urban Transit Association, added some transit examples to this list: the Valley Line in Edmonton, the Canada Line in Vancouver, as well as transit in the region of Waterloo.

Mr. Imbleau told the Committee that he considers the co-development approach taken for the High Frequency Rail project to be “the best of both worlds”:

If this project were completely handed over to the private sector, without the supervision of a well-informed office staffed by a good team, we'd be, in a way, navigating in the dark. On the other hand, it would also be difficult to develop such a complex civil, technological and electrical project solely within government because we probably wouldn't have access to innovations and new techniques that are out there, such as technologies and construction techniques, as well as competition among various firms.

This competitiveness, he explained, is central to the project: “We want the private sector to not only help us but to remain competitive and to compete with one another.” Mr. Brockmeyer told the Committee that competitiveness is also key to passenger rail operators in Europe which, with some exceptions, are state-owned and subsidized, “but they are competing and they are successful from this perspective.” He added that it is common for a P3 approach to be used in the absence of domestic capabilities or experience, pointing to some Scandinavian examples: “(t)hey hired all the engineers they could get from all over Europe—from Spain, Portugal and Italy—and brought them to Norway and Denmark and set up the system in their publicly owned infrastructure management. They bought all the capabilities from the engineering consultancies.”

Phase Four: Construction

Mr. Imbleau described the High Frequency Rail project as “first and foremost, a civil engineering project designed to build civil infrastructure, which is done locally,” When asked about existing industrial capacity and expertise in Quebec, he replied that “Building tracks and installing power lines are definitely things that are done locally. Right off the bat, the project will really maximize Canadian impacts simply as a result of geography. General contractors and firms from here generally reap the main economic benefits of these infrastructure projects,” He also acknowledged the need to “obviously abide by our international economic free-trade obligations”. He added, however, that the construction of locomotives and railcar components would generate “quite limited economic impact compared to the rest of the budget”, and that international obligations would also apply.

For his part, Michel Leblanc, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, recommended commitments to ensure that investments in Canada “are commensurate with project expenditures”, pointing to the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States as an example.

Timeline

While there is no explicit timetable for completion of the High Frequency Rail project, nor for when construction would even begin, Mr. Imbleau stated that he expects the co-development process (during which VIA HFR and the co-developer will establish the details of the eventual project) to take “a couple of years” before the government and the co-developer make a final investment decision. He also told the Committee that VIA HFR’s mandate “is to take adequate time and apply the right resources to pin down the right scope for Canadians and ensure that what we build is at the right cost and is affordable but is also economical for the future.”

Dr. Freemark suggested that, given the lack of detail available at this stage of the project, “a number of years of additional planning” would be needed. He estimated implementation of the project would not take place before “a minimum of 10 years […] and probably more like 15 years”. Pierre Barrieau, Lecturer with the Faculty of Environmental Design, School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, at the Université de Montréal (appearing as an individual), similarly suggested that a 10-year timeframe was reasonable for construction of the project, adding however that lengthy expropriation cases before the courts could add significant delays. This would not apply, he suggested, to stretches of the proposed Corridor like the Ottawa to Montreal line, which are already owned by VIA Rail. As no expropriations would be needed in this case, he indicated that such a segment could be operational much sooner than the rest of the High Frequency Rail service.

Mr. Dobrusin expressed concern that the private codeveloper would want to renegotiate terms within a few years, leading to further delays, while Mr. Johnson worried that “it's going to be years before we even begin to lay any track and, at the end of the day, it's going to cost Canadians more for the same train that we had a blueprint for in 2018.”

Phase Five: Operations and Maintenance

Upon delivery of the High Frequency Rail project, as Mr. Imbleau explained, the private partner will operate all passenger rail service within the Toronto to Quebec City corridor, while the Government of Canada will retain ownership of the service and its infrastructure. He also stated that local or regional hubs and spur lines would be added to expand the service, centred on the main High Frequency Rail line.[25]

Mr. Robitaille confirmed that the private partner will be required to maintain existing collective agreements and benefits and to work with existing unions and ensure that all VIA Rail employees working in the corridor will be employed in the new service, with no job losses. He also stated that the expected increase in ridership throughout the corridor will require the creation of “thousands of good new jobs,” in addition to existing VIA Rail positions. He further confirmed that new positions created will also be required to be unionized.

Mr. Robitaille explained that the High Frequency Rail project is designed to prevent competition with the old service, instead using a whole of system approach to better coordinate the movement of trains throughout the corridor and therefore achieve economies of scale. Mr. Barrieau, however, suggested that any existing lines in the corridor would necessarily lose ridership to the new, faster, main High Frequency Rail service.

Mr. Imbleau added that one of VIA HFR’s mandates during the operations phase is to limit the subsidy required for the High Frequency Rail service. In a written response to the Committee, VIA HFR indicated that bidders to the RFP process are requested to provide a solution which will, over time, eliminate subsidies along the Toronto to Quebec City corridor, while achieving a predefined level of customer satisfaction.

According to Dr. Freemark, “high-speed rail service operations in other parts of the world are almost universally profitable, which means they pay for their day-to-day operations”, although not, he clarified, for their capital costs. Robert Eaton, Senior Director of Government Affairs for Amtrak, confirmed that ticket sales are sufficient to cover the operational costs for Amtrak’s northeast services, although “it takes vast amounts of capital funding for the infrastructure, not only for the implementation but also the annual maintenance of it.” According to Mr. Brockmeyer, in Europe, “(w)e have independent infrastructure managers, and then we have open access operators on the infrastructure, which operate commercially. That means all of the subsidies are in the infrastructure.”

Mr. Imbleau added that further details will be studied during the co-development phase but that financial independence for the service is not foreseeable, although federal subsidies could be kept to a minimum through high ridership.

Private Sector Involvement in Operations

Some witnesses expressed specific objections to the involvement of the private sector in operating the completed High Frequency Rail service. Mr. Johnson stated that “Via Rail is perfectly capable of running the service. The building of it was always going to involve the private sector—projects always do—but the operation doesn't need to be outsourced.” Ms. Murray, meanwhile, expressed the view that “P3s for operations are a leftover from the previous era of ideologically driven privatization. Decades of failures of this model show there is no magic to be found and no actual competition resulting in higher-quality services, because transport like this is a natural monopoly.”

Mr. Dobrusin indicated that a P3 model for operating a transportation system can seem appealing by offering reduced risks for the government. He warned against this view, however, stating that “at the end of the day what we've seen across the world in the vast majority of public-private partnership projects is that it ends up being on the public and it ends up being on the government, and not just the federal government but the other levels of government that may also jump into a proposal like this.”

Potential Impact on VIA Rail Canada Services Outside of the Corridor

Looking to next steps for VIA Rail, Mr. Péloquin stated that “the eventual arrival of a new service in the corridor does not affect the fact that we must continue to serve off-corridor routes, including northern regions.” He also stressed the need to renew VIA Rail’s current rolling stock for long-distance and regional lines. He further told the Committee that, in his view, the new High Frequency Rail service would not impact the way that VIA Rail operates financially, nor its subsidy levels, as its lines are financially segmented. In a written response to the Committee, VIA Rail indicated that, in 2022, the combined average subsidy per passenger for travel from Toronto to Montreal and Montreal to Quebec City was $78.79.

Some witnesses, however, expressed concern for VIA Rail’s ability to maintain services outside of the corridor if revenues from the Toronto to Quebec City routes (which currently provide the vast majority of VIA Rail’s revenue[26]) will be controlled by the High Frequency Rail operator.^[27] Mr. Kennedy also echoed Mr. Péloquin’s statement on VIA Rail’s aging rolling stock and compared passenger rail service in Manitoba to the loss of Greyhound Canada, which progressively shrank its bus services until they were shut down completely. On this topic, Prof. Katz-Rosene also suggested the restoration of coach bus lines to ensure regional connectivity.

Mr. Johnson suggested that, “if the rest of Via Rail continues to operate as a public service, it needs a very much larger subsidy to provide all the core services that are currently shared with the corridor.” He also expressed doubt that larger subsidies would be forthcoming and predicted the loss of regional services like the “Skeena” line, which provides service between Jasper, Alberta, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Mr. Péloquin mentioned that it is very difficult to restart a regional service once it has been reduced, due to the need for rolling stock, staff, and permission from the host railways. However, he was clear in his intentions to maintain—or even increase, if possible—VIA Rail’s services outside of the corridor, particularly given the importance of rail service in some remote regions.

Mr. Johnson pointed out that VIA Rail’s original plan for high frequency rail would not only have eliminated the need for a subsidy in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, but would also have resulted in “a small surplus, which could be redirected to the rest of its services across Canada.”

For her part, the Mayor of the City of Drummondville, Stéphanie Lacoste, stated that Drummondville’s support for this project “has always been and continues to be conditional on maintaining, improving and enhancing services on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, in a context where Drummondville facilities would serve as an important stop, or hub, between Montreal and Quebec City.” Ms. Murray echoed this point on the importance of maintaining regional connections, arguing that “(i)nterest in commercial investments in one part of the system cannot be allowed to cannibalize needed investments in the rest of the system, a false division created by the plans for partial privatization.” She added that the “fragmentation of HFR and VIA already shows that the focus of providing service to the entire Canadian public has been undermined.”

Mr. Johnson stated that the key to the success of European railways “is solid policy and financial backing from their governments” and recommended that this approach be ensured by the Government of Canada for VIA Rail.

Defining the Project

The Committee heard from some witnesses about the importance of clearly defining the project’s main objectives before deciding on how it should be delivered, with Phil Verster, President and Chief Executive Officer of Metrolinx, advocating for “an obsession with what the customer base is you’re trying to serve, rather than starting with what the infrastructure solution is.” Prof. Katz-Rosene further warned against an “all of the above” approach, as some objectives may not be compatible.

As previously mentioned, Mr. Brockmeyer had presented Switzerland and Austria as successful examples for developing passenger rail services, largely due to their long-term planning. “They have a clear view of what the timetable will look like in 2070, so they can say at which stage and on which day of the week, in the year 2071, a freight train or high-speed train will go from Zurich to Geneva. Then they focused all their industry capabilities on this plan.” He added that a clear agreement on such a long-term schedule (or timetable) is needed “very early on” if the project involves a private consortium to ensure alignment and avoid any changes later in the process.

The need for collaboration was also stressed, whether between different levels of government,^[28] with local transit authorities,^[29] or with future passengers.^[30] Mr. Imbleau also spoke of the importance of discussions with Indigenous communities, while Mr. Robitaille stated that the project would “positively contribute to the Government of Canada's commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.”

Cost

The need for a more defined project was clear throughout the study when witnesses discussed its potential cost. When asked about a $12 billion estimate that was released in 2021, Mr. Imbleau confirmed that this was “probably not adequate anymore.” He would not, however, provide updated numbers, indicating that VIA HFR would “be in a position to provide better numbers in a few years' time.” He added that “it would probably be imprudent to throw numbers out, because the scope is not defined. The corridor is, but the scope is not defined. The technology is not well defined yet.”

This uncertainty, particularly with regards to the difference in cost between high-frequency and high-speed options, was a point of concern for some witnesses.^[31] Mr. Leblanc expressed concern:

I won't comment on other projects, but with respect to this one, with respect to this (project), I would say the numbers vary widely. As we are looking at two options for a given project, meaning high-frequency rail and high-speed rail, we need to understand all the financial factors, because they will have various repercussions on use. […]To be able to discuss the right solution, it's important to know the actual costs. To know the actual costs, a number of assumptions have to be made about things like inflation, financing costs, and complexities on the ground. Only after that can the right decision be made. The cost will be high, we agree, but we really have to know how high to make the right decision.

Mr. Blackburn and Ms. Kozhaya recommended looking to international examples to gain a better understanding of cost comparisons between the two speed models. Mr. Johnson, meanwhile, suggested that VIA Rail had initially opted for high-frequency over high-speed because “when you go above 110 miles an hour, costs hockey stick” and can even double to ensure the flat, straight rail line needed to ensure safety at high speeds. He added his concern that:

If the cost of this project doubles, that means there are other projects that Canada cannot deliver to other parts of the country that don't get a train service. That's where we would say there is a real problem with what's happening here, and the cost and the scope of this are getting further ahead.

Mr. Robitaille confirmed the additional needs for higher speeds, explaining that “once the train goes faster than 200 kilometres per hour, the difference is that you need a fully protected right of way. This means that the tracks are fenced. There cannot be at-grade crossings. That means viaducts [overpasses] over the road. It also means that the curves cannot be as great.” In a written response to the Committee, Transport Canada confirmed that an analysis of international HSR projects has been done to determine a cost range for capital costs of a fully high-speed network between Toronto and Quebec City. They stressed, however, that this analysis was “high-level”.

As a way to reduce costs, Dr. Freemark recommended acquiring land as early as possible once the route is confirmed, in order to avoid costly delays. Mr. Blackburn suggested that the High Frequency Rail corridor should be seen “as an investment for the coming decades. It's important not to see it as a short‑term investment, but for the next 50, 60 or 75 years. We'll never have a second chance to get this project off to a good start.” Meanwhile, Mr. Imbleau confirmed the need for significant financial involvement from the government while adding: “our job is to keep it as low as possible and ensure that we have the right balance with the private partner to make a service that is affordable.”

Ridership

As Mr. Brockmeyer told the Committee, “in the end it's all about customer satisfaction” in order to ensure competitiveness with other modes of transportation, as well as existing rail services. Dr. Freemark described rail ridership in Canada as “extremely low compared to that in other G7 nations” The average Canadian, he said, takes the train for an intercity trip once every ten years. In Germany, by comparison, the average resident takes 25 intercity rail trips every year.

Some witnesses expressed confidence that the demand for improved passenger rail between Toronto and Quebec City already exists and that, with high frequency rail service, ridership would necessarily increase.^[32] More specifically, Mr. Imbleau and Mr. Robitaille referred to projections that the High Frequency Rail service would increase annual ridership in the Corridor from approximately 4 million today (Mr. Robitaille indicated that the pre-pandemic peak was 4.9 million) to 17 million. Mr. Blackburn suggested that this number could increase even further with a high-speed rail service.

As an example of service investments driving ridership increases, Mr. Eaton pointed to passenger rail services between Washington D.C. and various points throughout the State of Virginia. State-level investments increased the frequency of services from one daily round trip in 2009 to eight daily round trips currently. Ridership has increased 48% in the past ten years due to “increased reliability, greater convenience, and improved customer experience”, and a further state-led initiative is aiming to add another five daily round trips by 2030.

Throughout this study, witness testimony revealed four main factors that might lead to an increase in ridership for passenger rail service: reliability, frequency or availability, the cost of fare, and of course travel time. Mr. Brockmeyer viewed most of these factors as flowing from one to the other with reliability (being on time) coming first, followed by frequency, then finally adding speed to reduce travel time: “because it makes no sense to have a very high-speed system with one train per day.” He added: “for speeds, frequency is a necessary condition, and if you have high speed, the frequency should ultimately be a result of it.”

Reliability

Steeve Lavoie, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Québec, explained the importance of reliability in terms of uncertainty: when the arrival time of a train is not known, it makes it difficult to make plans upon arrival, discouraging that mode of travel. Mr. Imbleau also believed that “reliability is key,” particularly in terms of drawing ridership to passenger rail from personal vehicles.

As Mr. Péloquin reminded the Committee, VIA Rail’s current reliability issues stem largely from the fact that most of its services do not operate on dedicated tracks. In fact, VIA Rail’s on-time performance on its own (limited) network of tracks is higher than 90%, compared to 60% on the rest of its services operating on host railroads.^[33] Mr. Eaton indicated that Amtrak shows a similarly marked increase in on-time performance on its network of dedicated tracks.

Mr. D’Angelo argued that dedicated tracks for the new High Frequency Rail service would improve reliability and therefore help draw ridership from other modes of travel. Both Mr. Imbleau and Mr. Robitaille confirmed to the Committee that the intention is to have dedicated tracks for “the majority” of the High Frequency Rail service.

As some witnesses pointed out, dedicated tracks for passenger rail would also serve to improve the reliability of freight transportation, ensuring smoother supply chains.^[34] However, as previously indicated, existing VIA Rail lines would continue to operate on tracks owned by CN and CPKC.

Prof. Katz-Rosene referred to potential legislation to give priority to passenger rail over freight. Mr. D’Angelo suggested that this idea merited further study and pointed to a recent incident in which Metrolinx’ transit service was impacted by CN’s temporary loss of Internet connectivity. As CN manages the rail corridor around Union Station in Toronto, Metrolinx was unable to provide services for a few hours, impacting passengers as far as London, Ontario.

As Mr. Péloquin pointed out, federal legislation in the United States gives Amtrak priority for its passenger trains over freight. Mr. Eaton confirmed this priority, although he indicated that it “is not always adhered to.” He added that schedule conflicts are more preferably addressed in collaboration with host railroads, with whom he said Amtrak has “a very strong relationship.”

Mr. Verster echoed this point regarding Metrolinx’ own relationship with both CN and CPKC in Canada, which he referred to as “integral partners,” although he confirmed that Metrolinx owns 85% of its network, and its “punctuality is in the order of 96% or 97%.”

Frequency / Availability

Mr. Lavoie told the Committee that,”(w)hen it comes to transportation, we know that demand is influenced by supply. The better the availability, the more people will use it”. Similarly, Mayor Lacoste indicated that “when people who live in Drummondville need to get to Montreal or Quebec for work, they tend to drive, because the train schedules aren't suited to their needs and they're worried about having to wait too long and arriving late to work.” Mr. D’Angelo also spoke of the benefits of having many options for schedules and routes, saying: “People want it to be easy to take a high-frequency train.”

Fare Cost

According to Prof. Katz-Rosene,” the number one determinant for modal choice for intercity transport is the cost, the price.” He expressed concern that the involvement of a private partner may drive up fares to recoup the costs of the project more quickly, particularly in the case of a more expensive high-speed rail service. Mr. Brockmeyer referred to European examples of ticket management systems for high-speed operators which mark up prices (from 50% to 100%) based on the speed of the train. According to him, shorter travel times will result in more “willingness to pay on the part of the customers.”

When it comes to comparing costs, however, Mr. Pineau pointed out that the cost of driving is often underestimated, as it includes the cost of road maintenance. He estimated that, for a business trip from Montreal to Ottawa, an employer might reimburse for a car expense rate of 70¢ per kilometre, for an approximate total of $280 for a 200 km distance. A round trip train ticket, by comparison, would only be $120.

Travel Time

Despite the importance of reliability, frequency, and fare costs, it was speed, or more specifically shorter travel times, that was identified by several witnesses as a key factor to significantly draw ridership from other modes of travel.^[35] According to Mr. Blackburn, 94% of current trips in the Toronto to Quebec City corridor are by car, compared with only 2% by passenger rail service. He indicated that speed would be “vital” to shifting travellers’ behaviour. Dr. Freemark echoed this, suggesting that international examples show that high-frequency rail service can increase passenger rail ridership to between 30% and 60% of the overall market share. A high-speed service, however, which would reduce travel time between Toronto and Montreal to under three hours, could increase market share to 80%.

Dr. Freemark estimated that the current High Frequency Rail proposal would see a travel time of approximately four hours (“maybe three and a half hours, if we're lucky”) between Toronto and Montreal. This, he argued, despite being an improvement over the current service times, “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.”

Some witnesses made the distinction, however, between drawing ridership from cars and from flights. Mr. Imbleau indicated that the latter would be “a side benefit” more than a “key objective,” with the focus being more on attracting car users to the train.

Prof. Katz-Rosene suggested that travel time for a flight between Toronto and Montreal, including time to reach the airport and go through security, would be approximately three hours and 15 minutes. According to Mr. Brockmeyer, European examples show that rail service “dominates” over air when travel time is below four hours, and that “there are no flights” when rail service travel times drops below three hours. Dr. Freemark stated that “(h)igh-speed rail service would make most air travel from Toronto and Montreal to Ottawa superfluous.”

In terms of attracting ridership from cars along the Montreal to Quebec City route, Mr. Imbleau indicated that the slowest of the two scenarios requested from the bidding consortia would result in a travel time of 2 hours and 50 minutes from downtown to downtown, which he stated to be faster than by car. The second scenario would reduce travel time to 2 hours and 15 minutes. In Mr. Leblanc’s estimation, 2 hours and 50 minutes from Montreal to Quebec City is “definitely not fast enough” to significantly draw ridership.

Mr. Brockmeyer stated that high-speed rail services in Europe tend to be between 10% and 40% faster than travel by car, though he added that train travel has the additional benefit of convenience in terms of productivity during the trip. He also stressed the importance of calculating travel times to include the “first and last mile,” (the travel between the points of departure or arrival and the first and last modes of transportation) with strong intermodal connections throughout the system.

In a written response to the Committee, Transport Canada confirmed that it has preliminary analysis showing that both high frequency and high-speed services would take some market share away from the air and auto markets but is working on a more detailed analysis on this front.

Speed

Mr. Imbleau told the Committee that “(t)he objective is not top speed for the sake of speed. It's about saving time. Faster average speed that shortens travel time is the way to go.” He acknowledged, however, the debate between high frequency and high-speed rail as the better option for improving passenger rail service between Toronto and Quebec City. This debate was widely discussed throughout this study.

One concern that was expressed is whether the climate in the proposed corridor would allow for high-speed rail at all. Mr. Péloquin explained that the issue is not merely the extreme cold during winter, but rather the wide range of temperatures throughout the year. He indicated that he was not aware of any examples of high-speed trains that operate in regions where the temperature can vary by up to 70°C from winter to summer, including drastic changes within a season, or even a single day.

Dr. Freemark, however, dismissed these concerns, pointing to rail service in cold regions “like Moscow-St. Petersburg, northern sections of Japan and parts of South Korea,” and to the high-speed rail network in China, which includes some regions that “experience many of the weather concerns that Canada experiences.” Mr. Brockmeyer also told the Committee that the technology does exist for high-speed rail in a harsh climate, although some additional design features to “build it to be a bit more robust” may result in additional costs. He added that no transportation system can keep running in all situations, and that extreme weather events such as a heavy snowstorm would also impact air travel.

Mr. Péloquin was of the view that either high-frequency or high-speed rail would be an improvement, as they would both provide more service. Mr. Massicotte similarly did not express a preference, indicating that, without the necessary expertise to judge either way, his priority was ensuring a station in Trois-Rivières “to promote the region's economic development.” Mr. Eaton, meanwhile, pointed to the success of both Amtrak’s high-speed Acela trains and its high-frequency routes, particularly in the northeastern United States.

Meanwhile, Mr. D’Angelo argued that high-speed rail would be less effective in linking many communities and maximising ridership, stating that high-frequency rail would be better suited to achieving “routes that are useful, reliable and available to as many people as possible.”

Some other witnesses, however, argued that high-speed rail is necessary to deliver the shortened travel times necessary to draw ridership from other modes of transportation.^[36] Dr. Freemark, for example, highlighted the importance of drawing ridership toward rail and away from more polluting alternatives such as air travel. Mr. Lavoie, while expressing support for high-frequency rail, added that speed is also an important consideration and that “(t)he line between Quebec City and Montreal clearly needs to be high-speed.”

In addressing this discussion, Mr. Imbleau argued that there is “a false debate about what is frequent and what is fast,” adding that the High Frequency Rail service will be “as frequent, as fast, as reliable and as economical as possible” in considering the long-term needs of passengers. Mr. Robitaille reiterated that the bidding consortia are required to present two solutions, one of which will include high-speed segments, to “allow for a rigorous assessment of the costs and benefits of incorporating high-speed rail on each segment of the corridor.”

Mr. Massicotte expressed that such a hybrid system “might be the optimal scenario,” while Mr. Barrieau discussed the possibility of gradual, local, speed increases on a high-frequency rail network. An important consideration, as Mr. Brockmeyer told the Committee, is the effect of geography on the cost of building a high-speed rail service, given the need for flat terrain and straight lines, and the increased costs of viaducts and tunnels.

Route

Several witnesses discussed the route that the High Frequency Rail service should take. On this topic, Mr. Imbleau told the Committee that certain essential stations have been established through a mandate letter from the Minister of Transport (these are Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, Trois-Rivières, and Quebec City^[37]). Any additional stations, he explained, would be determined in collaboration with the private co-developer to ensure “the best possible service,” while also minimizing the number of stops to ensure shorter travel times. He added that the determination of a final route would depend upon many factors, including distance, the number of stations, population density, geography, any track-sharing that may be required, as well as natural obstacles such as Mount-Royal in Montreal. These will be balanced with service needs, environmental factors, and cost.

Figure 1—Proposed High Frequency Rail Service

Sources: Map prepared in 2024, using data obtained from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), National Railway Network – NRWN – GeoBase Series; Uday Rana, “Can high-frequency rail help growing transport woes in Ontario and Quebec?,” Global News, 9 October 2023; Statistics Canada, 2021 Census – Boundary files; Statistics Canada, “Table 17-10-0135-01: Population estimates, July 1, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, 2016 boundaries,” Database, accessed 28 February 2024; United States (U.S.) Census Bureau, TIGER/Line Shapefile, 2020, Nation, U.S., Metropolitan Divisions, 2020; U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual Resident Population Estimates for Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and Their Geographic Components for the United States: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022 (CBSA-EST2022),” in Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Population Totals: 2020–2023; NRCan, Administrative Boundaries in Canada – CanVec Series – Administrative Features, 1:5M, 2019; NRCan, Lakes, Rivers and Glaciers in Canada – CanVec Series – Hydrographic Features, 1:5M, 2019; and NRCan, Wooded Areas, Saturated Soils and Landscape in Canada – CanVec Series – Land Features, 1:5M, 2019. The following software was used: Esri, ArcGIS Pro, version 3.2.2. Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence – Canada and the Statistics Canada Open Licence.

As previously mentioned, Mr. Brockmeyer estimated that geography, specifically how level the land is, can have a significant impact on the cost of building a rail line in general, and particularly one that anticipates operating high-speed trains. He also confirmed that higher-speed trains need tunnels or viaducts when intersecting with highways, given the safety concerns with level crossings.

Stations

According to Mr. Robitaille, studies with regard to the placement of stations along the route are currently being undertaken as part of the RFP process, and more will take place after the selection of the private co-developer. Mr. Imbleau, meanwhile, reiterated that the intention is to limit the number of stations as much as possible, beyond the six mandated stops. This concern of negatively impacting the speed of the service by adding too many stations was echoed by Mr. Blackburn, who stated that too many stops would “run the risk of compromising one of the main objectives, which is to improve speed and frequency.”

Dr. Freemark proposed running both an express service and a regional service in parallel along the corridor. This seems in line with VIA HFR’s position that current regional VIA Rail service would continue, though they would be managed and coordinated by the private co-developer.^[38] Mr. Barrieau suggested collaboration with other levels of government to expand commuter rail services along the corridor, instead of continuing to run existing VIA Rail services whose trains, he worried, would be “mostly empty.”

Mayor Lacoste advocated for developing a hub, with expanded regional services, in Drummondville, Quebec, to ensure connections throughout the south shore of the St-Lawrence with the main High Frequency Rail line. This, she argued, would be of great benefit to the city and region, allowing a greater flow of labour with larger urban centres. The City of Drummondville, in its brief, also suggested that such a hub, and the corresponding improvement of passenger rail service between the south shore and Montreal, could be done “independently of the development and delivery phases of the HFR project, and without any further delay.”

Some witnesses also suggested that High Frequency Rail lines could be connected to a larger North American passenger rail network, whether through Detroit, New York City, or Chicago.^[39] In fact Mr. Péloquin confirmed ongoing discussions between VIA Rail and Amtrak, and indicated that the later has expressed interest in expanding its services in Canada. Mr. Eaton also indicated ongoing discussions to improve cross-border service through pre-clearance expansion and confirmed that Amtrak would be “delighted” to see increased cross-border passenger rail.

Downtown Connections

Some witnesses also debated the best location within a city for a High Frequency Rail station: in the downtown core, or on the outskirts. The City of Montreal, for example, in its brief, recommended that a stop be established “in downtown Montreal to boost the city’s economy, raise its international profile and stimulate tourism.” Mr. Imbleau indicated that multiple options in each municipality were being considered and that the decision would be made in collaboration with the private co-developer, to “determine the best economic sites for a maximum number of passengers and to promote intermodality for passengers.”

This idea of intermodal connections, particularly links with urban and regional transit networks, was repeated by several witnesses.^[40] Mr. Barrieau, speaking specifically with regard to a potential Montreal High Frequency Rail station, recommended avoiding the downtown area in favour of efficient connections to urban transit such as the Réseau express métropolitain (REM). He also pointed to the suburban train stations in Osaka and Tokyo, Japan as successful examples that avoided more costly downtown stations.

Indeed, Mr. Robitaille pointed out that downtown areas may not be able to accommodate new tracks, which would require the use of existing freight lines, exposing both the passenger and freight networks to potential delays. Mr. Brockmeyer also indicated that most European rail networks, with the exception of Spain, similarly have stations on the outskirts of cities, rather than in the downtown cores, to reduce costs. He stressed, however, the more important need to ensure connectivity with urban transit and recommended that the High Frequency Rail line “go to the city centres of the most important cities—Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec [City]—and build the stations outside of the smaller cities if possible.”

Mr. Leblanc clarified that the importance of “downtown-to-downtown” travel does not necessarily require a High Frequency Rail station in the city-centre, but rather an easy and fast connection to the city-centre from the High Frequency Rail station. He and Mr. Brockmeyer both stressed that this additional transit must be factored into the High Frequency Rail project’s overall calculation of travel time between cities. Dr. Freemark agreed with the importance of keeping the “distance” between High Frequency Rail stations and the centres of population as short as possible and added that this distance could be “reduced by improved urban transit or by having the terminus in a very central location,” depending on the city. He warned that without meeting this key objective, travel time to and from the rail station would be “similar to what (passengers) experience with airports today, which would defeat the point for investing in the rail service. You need to get those rail stations in central, very transit-accessible locations.”

Mr. Verster told the Committee that Metrolinx has been engaged with VIA HFR for several years to ensure that its own infrastructure improvements will be compatible with the new service’s future needs. Planned changes to Union Station in Toronto, for example, will increase the station’s capacity from 36 trains per hour to 80 trains per hour. As a “great example of service integration,” Mr. Barrieau pointed to suburban Los Angeles, “where a monthly pass holder can jump on the Amtrak train or on the Metrolink of Los Angeles between the same stations, and that permits people to try Amtrak and use it sometimes.” He added that this seamless system increases ridership, which in turn reduces passenger cost.

In addition to transit connections, Mr. Blackburn spoke to the need to look at the High Frequency Rail network “holistically, in complementarity with the other modes of transportation we have access to in Canada, such as air, road, of course, and even waterborne.” When asked, Dr. Freemark agreed that all modes of transportation, including municipal transit, trains, ships, and airports, should all be in close proximity to each other.

Mr. Barrieau specifically spoke of the importance of connections with airports, stating that “the two main drivers for ridership” are “airports and downtowns.” He also stressed the need for collaboration with municipal governments in establishing an effective passenger rail system. In its brief, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) recommended strong collaboration between the High Frequency Rail project office and the GTAA “to plan and design a HFR connection at Toronto Pearson to develop a second major transportation hub in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area.” It also recommended that “linking nationally important federal transportation air & rail modes” be made a core priority for the High Frequency Rail during its co-development phase, stating that “(m)ajor international airports have demonstrated commercial success by linking rail and air modes together to create a seamless passenger experience.” The City of Montreal, in its brief, also recommended considering a stop near the Montréal-Trudeau international airport, with connection to the REM.

Windsor (High Frequency Rail Phase 2)

Some witnesses also spoke of a potential extension of the High Frequency Rail service from Toronto to Windsor, offering full High Frequency Rail service throughout the entire Windsor to Quebec City Corridor. Mr. D’Angelo referred to the need for a safe mode of transportation in the southwestern portion of the corridor, particularly during inclement weather, adding: “(s)o many people are choosing to drive from Windsor to the Detroit airport to take a flight to Montreal. These are things that don't make sense.”

In its brief, the GTAA also recommended “continue(d) investigation of Southwestern Ontario rail improvements with specific attention to Toronto Pearson for future rail expansion.” According to Dr. Freemark, “even though London, Windsor, etc., are not enormous metropolitan areas, the size of Toronto as a huge population centre could make investing in a substantially improved rail service from Toronto to Windsor actually worth it,” particularly if the service further connected internationally into Detroit. Mr. Eaton, meanwhile, clarified that Amtrak’s consideration of service connections between Windsor and Detroit are not contingent on extending the High Frequency Rail corridor.

Mr. Johnson indicated that he was aware of a Transport Canada-led study into a High Frequency Rail “phase 2” in southwestern Ontario. He argued that, unlike the rest of the Corridor, service issues between Toronto and Windsor could easily and immediately be solved by increasing the frequency and speed of VIA Rail trains to Windsor and Sarnia. He added his concern that the separation between VIA Rail and VIA HFR has resulted in VIA Rail being “in somewhat lame duck mode and doesn't know what it's supposed to do for the next 10 years to tackle the challenges we have right now, whereas they could be doing all of the things at once, because these things are synergistic. They all feed each other.”

Mr. Imbleau also referred to these ongoing studies by Transport Canada but was clear that VIA HFR’s mandate is specific to the Toronto to Quebec City corridor.

Mode of Propulsion

According to Mr. Robitaille, “(a)s an electrified service, (High Frequency Rail ) will deliver significant reductions in GHG emissions.” Mr. Imbleau also confirmed that “the intent is to have fully electric trains,” although he clarified that some portions of the line may require other technology such as biodiesel or diesel-electric, “for instance in seriously congested communities.” He added that the decision on electrification would be made in collaboration with the private co-developer, and that the efficiency of available batteries would be a significant factor, particularly in stretches of the service along which a catenary overhead electrical line is not possible.

In terms of alternative technologies, Mr. Leblanc pointed to international examples of hydrogen rail projects and proposed domestic development for passenger rail. Mr. Imbleau again confirmed that all options would be considered, though he indicated that green energy in Quebec and Ontario makes electrification particularly attractive for the High Frequency Rail line. He also pointed to the fact that one of the world’s major hydrogen rail projects has been abandoned in Germany, as it was determined that “full electric was just more efficient and cheaper to operate.” Mr. Johnson made the distinction between shorter services such as those being proposed in Alberta, for which hydrogen power may be economical, and high frequency or high-speed services. For these, he concluded that a fully electric system was the most efficient choice.

Alberta Projects

Although testimony throughout this study focused on the High Frequency Rail project in the Toronto to Quebec City corridor, some witnesses also raised proposed rail projects in Alberta. Mr. Barrieau, for example, expressed support for a link between Calgary and Edmonton. Dr. Freemark also approved of such a project due to the large populations in both metropolitan areas and the “reasonable travel time” (he estimated no more than two hours) between them. He added that the creation of a passenger rail link could have a “dramatic” impact on market share, and that the lack of geographic obstacles would likely result in a lower per kilometer cost to build, in comparison with the High Frequency Rail line in the Toronto to Quebec City corridor.

Mr. D’Angelo also expressed interest in these potential new rail projects in Alberta, while Mr. Péloquin told the Committee that they would “be of great benefit economically and socially to a larger segment of our population.”