THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 24, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:30 a.m. to continue its study on the regulatory and technical issues related to the deployment of connected and automated vehicles.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. This morning, the committee is continuing its study on connected and automated vehicles.
[English]
We have today two panels of witnesses. First, from the Central North American Trade Corridor Association, Barrie Kirk, Consultant, who is late. Speaking of corridors, he is stuck in traffic. We have two other witnesses who will be reading his statement, and they are Paul Godsmark, Chief Technology Officer at the Canadian Automated Vehicles Centre of Excellence, by video conference, and Roy Ludwig, Mayor, City of Estevan, Saskatchewan. He is also appearing by video conference.
I think one of you two will read the statement, so we will start, then.
Paul Godsmark, Chief Technology Officer at the Canadian Automated Vehicles Centre of Excellence, Central North American Trade Corridor Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair and good morning, senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Paul Godsmark. My colleague, Barrie Kirk, has appeared before this committee, but our appearance today is solely on behalf of the Central North American Trade Corridor Association, or CNATCA.
Two people are joining him today as well, and they are Roy Ludwig, Mayor of Estevan, Saskatchewan, who is a director of the Central North American Trade Corridor Association, and myself, whom you met in Calgary a couple of years ago at a conference.
CNATCA is an international organization recognized in the United States as a not-for-profit association. Its vision is the development and promotion of a north-south trade corridor connecting Mexico, the central United States and central Canada. The result will be improved prosperity, and a key enabling technology will be autonomous trucks and other vehicles.
CNATCA’s mission includes the revitalization of rural communities and the promotion of the five Ts: trade, tourism, training, technology and transportation.
The geographic scope encompasses four Canadian provinces and one territory — those are British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Yukon — and seven U.S. states and 14 Mexican states.
In addition, the corridor specifically includes North American First Nations in all three countries. These play a vital economic role in the corridor and are actively engaged in the association and its mission.
The concept would be to promote the deployment of special facilities such as recharging, fuelling and inspection stations. In addition, the corridor would support the use of autonomous drones along a reserved air corridor above the highway route.
CNATCA is joining a team based in North Dakota that is seeking funding for an autonomous vehicle highway from Bismarck to the Canadian border. The proposal is to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration under a grants program called Infrastructure for Rebuilding America.
The current status is that CNATCA has connected with a range of partners and is conducting initial planning.
We would like to announce an expansion of the CNATCA vision in two significant ways: first, conducting a trial and demonstration of a fully autonomous and driverless tractor-trailer crossing the border in both directions within two years. In our opinion, the technology for this trial will be the easy part. The hard part will be making the necessary arrangements with multiple agencies in all three levels of government on both sides of the border.
The second key announcement today is the expansion of the vision to include an east-west, trans-Canada autonomous-friendly truck corridor that would connect to the CNATCA north-south route.
We ask that this Senate committee support this vision of an advanced technology trade corridor comprising both the baseline vision and the two expansions.
In addition, we request that the Government of Canada commission a feasibility study of this concept, including the demonstration.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the big benefit for Canada is enhanced trade with the U.S. and Mexico, with long-term economic, environmental and social benefits.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony to you. I and my colleagues, Mr. Ludwig and Mr. Kirk, will be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for this. I find it particularly interesting, as I am a Manitoba senator. You mentioned that you are looking at the proposal for funding for an AV highway from Bismarck to the Canadian border. May I ask what is happening on the Canadian side of the border? Is the highway ready for this kind of technology and these autonomous vehicles to transport goods back and forth?Tied with that, what work is being done to ensure that cross-border regulations match from the north to the south or the south to the north?
Roy Ludwig, Mayor, City of Estevan, Saskatchewan: Initially, our provincial government was going to twin from North Portal all the way to Regina, where the traffic can hook up with the GTH, the Global Transportation Hub. Right now, due to economic restraints, they have scaled it back to 16 passing lanes, which they will start, hopefully, in 2018. They should be finished by the end of 2019. They figure probably two years to put these passing lanes in place.
As far as going through the border, that is still a work in progress but, again, we feel that with the goodwill between the U.S. and Canada, we can make that happen.
Senator Bovey: I guess I remain concerned about the capacity of the highways on the Canadian side of the border to accommodate lanes for autonomous hauling trucks. I am looking for what needs to be done to ensure safety, not only for the convoys themselves but for other people on the highways.
Mr. Godsmark: There is no need to build additional lanes for autonomous trucks. They will work within the existing highway. There is no special infrastructure needed other than, on a long corridor, you might want to provide especially adapted charging and maintenance points.
The other advantage of trucks is that once we get them working, we can start platooning, which means they can travel more closely together, which would increase the capacity of any existing lanes. Adding additional lanes in the future will add additional value but is not vital to the commencement of an autonomous-friendly corridor.
Senator Bovey: I am positive on this stuff, although you might not realize it from my questions. I agree that platooning will have many benefits, but with a platoon of three or five trucks — I guess the numbers change with what I am hearing — one of the concerns that has been brought to my attention is the difficulty for other highway drivers to off- and on-ramp with the length and space that the platoons take up. Knowing that highway north of Emerson well, I know it is vacant sometimes, but sometimes it isn’t. With a platoon of three to five trucks, I wonder how people will be able to get off and on.
Mr. Godsmark: That is a legitimate concern. As someone who used to be involved in operational road safety, I share those concerns. In fact, I have many others with platooning.
My expectation is that a platoon would be broken up in advance of a congested on-ramp and off-ramp section, because as you say, it would be a safety hazard for other road users who might feel that they can’t pass to an off-ramp, for instance, and feel they have to swoop through gaps much closer than is reasonably safe. That is an operational road safety item that must be addressed, and operational policies must account for that sort of behaviour.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I am trying to understand your project. Are we talking about using existing infrastructure or developing new infrastructure for the corridor you are proposing?
[English]
Mr. Godsmark: We are using the existing highway corridor, and existing traffic will continue to use the corridor. The trucks will simply transition in as they are deployed. The only additional infrastructure would be dedicated points where the vehicles can stop to be recharged or refuelled, and they can have a visual inspection, or a person can inspect the load, to ensure everything is okay with the vehicles.Other than that, it is the existing corridor and infrastructure.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Are you currently holding discussions with your American colleagues or the American authorities on the reception of your project?
[English]
Mr. Ludwig: Throughout the Central North American Trade Corridor Association, we are having conversations with our American friends, up to Congress. We have a member of Congress who has been involved. The conversations continue.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Once you have reserved a corridor specifically for the use of autonomous heavy trucks, how much do you think heavy truck traffic will increase on that existing infrastructure?
[English]
Mr. Ludwig: I would suggest that, initially, I don’t think it would be too onerous. We have to remember this is early days. Initially, it will be somewhat tentative until we get the technology down pat. It will take probably a year or so to get the bugs ironed out before we see any negative impact as far as increasing traffic to the point of having any concerns.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I went to Europe a few years ago, and autonomous vehicle corridors already existed in the Netherlands and Spain, among other countries. Are you following the developments in this area in Europe?
[English]
Mr. Ludwig: I can’t answer that from my experience, but I know some of the people in CNATCA have been in discussions. To what stage those discussions have gone, I cannot tell you for sure, senator.
Senator Griffin: Tell me about your consultations with the indigenous people along the proposed north-south route.
Mr. Ludwig: We have members of the indigenous community on our connected board. We value their input and we have ongoing discussions with them.
Senator Griffin: So they have been involved since the beginning of the discussions.
Mr. Ludwig: That is correct.
Senator Griffin: How about the provinces? Someone mentioned that you will communicate with the communities. Have you also been communicating with the provincial governments?
Mr. Ludwig: Yes, that is a good point. We had a meeting in Kenmare, south of Estevan on the U.S. side. We had Minister Marit, the Minister of Highways, there. We had his counterpart from North Dakota, too. These discussions are ongoing, and we continue to facilitate the meetings.
Senator Griffin: Excellent. Thank you.
I was interested in the proposed east-west trans-Canada route. I am from Prince Edward Island. I am not sure you intend eventually to reach the Maritimes and possibly even cross the Confederation Bridge to Canada’s smallest province. How far east do you envisage the east-west route going, or have you thought about that yet?
Mr. Ludwig: Again, these are early days, so we are taking baby steps right now. The intent would be to eventually have this type of truck right across the nation.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: As a senator from New Brunswick, I am interested in the east-west corridor project. What are the main challenges you might face, given that roads in some regions of the country, including rural regions, are much less suited or equipped to host a project like yours? What kind of research has been done on the development of that east-west corridor?
[English]
Mr. Godsmark: It is just a concept at the moment. We have simply floated the idea because we think it is a good idea, but there have been no formal discussions. Our biggest obstacle is funding. CNATCA in the U.S. hasn’t yet fixed any fund that I am aware of, and we haven’t yet applied for any funding in Canada either.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Have you had discussions with, for example, the private industry and companies that are in charge of transportation in various regions of the country?
[English]
Mr. Ludwig: Yes, we have some trucking people involved on our committee. As you know, there is an issue with large trucks with getting drivers. This is another issue that would help take care of that problem with autonomous trucking. We have tried to have discussions with a wide variety of people and with the trucking industry as well. Again, we are in the initial stages, so we continue to flesh that out.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I have one last question. What would be the federal government’s main role in your project? What kind of a relationship do you think the government should establish and what initiatives should it undertake to help with your project?
[English]
Mr. Ludwig: Again, I would suggest helping to facilitate the ongoing discussions. It would mean a lot if we had the federal government involved to help facilitate between the Americans and Canadians — having the federal people involved along with Congress. I think it would help greatly to have that dialogue to help work through any problems as far as the governments go.
In Canada, we not only have the federal but also the provincial and municipal. One of the issues will be working through this. The technology itself will not be as difficult because a lot of that is already perfected. We will need help from the federal government and from the province, again, working with the municipal governments through the different levels. This is where I see that the main contention will be, so again,, to facilitate discussion between the federal government and the federal government in the U.S.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am concerned mostly with the technical aspects of having platoons and heavy trucks on the highways.
You mentioned that the lanes don’t need to be modified. However, when we talk about platoons and heavy trucks, we are already impacting the structure beneath the roads. Roads are constructed and designed to hold cars and small trucks. That is one question.
The other aspect is that I hope you are looking into electrification of these trucks and not fuelling with fossil fuel. If so, how will these trucks be recharged? I have read that maybe drones can deliver batteries.
This leads to my third question: If it is really autonomous, if there is really no one in this convoy, and if it is transporting hazardous substances, who will take care of the situation in the case of an accident? Have you thought about that?
Mr. Ludwig: I will speak, and then perhaps Paul can add to it.
As far as the weights on the road, they are continually monitored. We have the department of highways. The heavier trucks have to have more and more wheels on their units so that the pounds per square inch are not as great. In fact, probably there is not that much more on a pound-per-square-inch basis, although you have the overall weight of the heavy trucks. Because of the amount of rubber on the road, the weight is not as much as it used to be. They are putting more axles on the trucks to help alleviate that condition so they don’t do damage to the roadbed. Again, as new construction takes place, they take into account the need to facilitate these large trucks and build accordingly.
In terms of your comment about electrification, that is a good point. We will probably look at that down the road and it will probably happen, because environmentally that would be a good way to go.
Mr. Godsmark: Following on from what Mr. Ludwig said, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as we switch over to autonomous trucks, to evaluate the damage that trucks do to our roads and to balance the cost of maintaining the roads with the cost of the goods in the shops.
It is a fascinating fact that a big truck does 10,000 times the damage of one small car. There are two things that damage the road. There is the weather, principally water; and there is the axle load. But with autonomous trucks, we reduce the cost of a truck by about 42 per cent when we remove the driver, and then you can use the truck about 40 per cent more of the time because you don’t have working-time regulations. So you have increased the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the truck. However, the big truck weights are costing society. We would love to do a study with someone in Canada to look at the balance of the cost of the truck weight and axle load versus the cost of goods in the shops.
You asked about looking into electric vehicles. We are not developing the technology ourselves, but we are excited that in every aspect of autonomous vehicles, including trucks, there is a push away from fossil fuels to more efficient forms of propulsion. Tesla is announcing electric trucks sometime in the next few weeks, according to statements by Elon Musk, their CEO. There is another company called Nikola that is developing a large electric semi-truck. It’s a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, but electric. We would be excited to work with any of those manufacturers on the corridor for early pilot projects and the like.
In terms of the vehicles and safety, hazardous materials and transportation, we will have to take it slowly. The initial goods being moved will be clearly in the safer variety. As we develop the policies and operational strategies, we can increase the risk we are willing to accept to take on the road. We will have to take it step by step. Initially we will be cautious and work with the safest loads we can, under the tightest controls that we can.
Senator Galvez: If you have in mind replacing trains, what happens is that the companies that can afford transport by road or train are the rich companies, and usually their materials are not as safe as grains. So when you look for your clients, I just hope that in your calculations you account for safety because the people who will be able to afford this will be the people who will be transporting not very safe materials. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Godsmark, one of your associates is Mario Anderson, who also works for the Central North American Trade Corridor Association. He noted a couple of years ago that North Dakota-based oil companies had insufficient pipeline capacity to transport their oil to destination and were consequently competing with commodity producers for space on trains. Since that time, we’ve had an election in the U.S. and the President of the United States has approved the XL pipeline, and I expect that would alleviate a lot of that pressure.Does that change the arguments on behalf of the corridor? How does that affect the arguments in favour of the corridor?
Mr. Godsmark: Actually, Mayor Ludwig, I think you’re in a better position to answer this than me.
Mr. Ludwig: I guess we haven’t had a lot of positive history lately with the pipelines actually coming to fruition, so although we’re happy that the announcement has been made, I think we still have a long road ahead of us before that particular pipeline is completed.In the interim, yes, the impact will still be on trains and trucks. Even when that pipeline is built and is operational, we’ll still need the trucks on the road and the train traffic for the transportation of goods. So although that will alleviate when the pipeline hopefully is eventually built — because I believe pipelines are the safest way to transport oil — we’ll still have a strong need out there well into the future for the heavy trucks and the trains to transport our goods.
Senator MacDonald: What advantages do you see in terms of petroleum? Do you see any advantages, if there are any, for an autonomous trucking corridor compared to a pipeline or increased rail transportation?
Mr. Ludwig: Again, senator, personally I believe the pipelines are, of course, the safest, but one of the reasons why we feel autonomous trucking is the way of the future is that you don’t have people falling asleep at the wheel. We feel there are many safety aspects because you take the human factor out. It will be a lot safer to transport goods of all kinds by going this route.Not only will it save money because of the labour of the driver which could, perhaps, as Paul mentioned, be put towards improving the roads, but there are other positive issues to that dimension as well.
Senator Bovey: I certainly understand that you’re doing both short- and long-term visioning, and I applaud parallelling short- and long-term visions.
I want to come back, though, to my question on regulations. The federal government is certainly involved in all that’s going on, and we’ve been asked to do this study to help advise the federal government on the regulatory work and framework that they need to have in place when this technology is implemented.
I’d very much appreciate your advice as to what questions we should be posing or advice we should be giving. This is cross-border, and we’ve been raising questions about interprovincial regulations and are well aware of the municipal responsibilities. I’d really be interested in your cross-border regulatory issues and the concerns you think we should be raising.
Mr. Godsmark: If I may, Mr. Chair and senators, the number one highlight for me is that in the little research I have done on regulations around this, the slowest-moving regulations of all are border crossings. The one thing that I believe should be started at the very earliest opportunity is some form of cross-border research development project that would facilitate the rapid movement of autonomous trucks across the border. My understanding is that could take a minimum of two to three years even if on an accelerated, fast-track program. Of all of the things we look at, that is the slowest.
The other thing that’s of particular interest is the regulations that are being looked at in the U.S. at the moment, in the SELF DRIVE Act. It looks as if large vehicles have been removed from that, and that’s, I believe, something that needs to be addressed urgently because, as soon as autonomous driving capability is available, the business model for large trucks is very clear and there will be an incredible pressure to start moving goods by the large trucks.
Those are the two key ones for me: border crossing and making sure big vehicles are included.
Senator Bovey: If you have specific issues within those topics, may I ask that you forward them to the clerk so that we can make sure the specificity of your experience and knowledge is incorporated in the report that we will soon be writing?
Mr. Godsmark: Senator, at the moment, I can’t go into any greater detail than that, I’m afraid, because there simply hasn’t been any money available to look into this on our side in any detail. It’s just a very high-level view that I just described.
Senator Bovey: I take your point that this needs to be fast-tracked, and I guess I’m looking for the jumping-off point so we can have it fast-tracked.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: To follow up on my colleague’s question, Teamsters managed to have legislation passed in the United States to ban autonomous vehicles under 10,000 pounds. Nowadays, there are many vehicles of 10,000 pounds and over on the roads. Is that a constraint for your project, both in terms of traffic and financially?
[English]
Mr. Godsmark: Senator, yes, it’s a real problem, the fact that the SELF DRIVE Act restricts vehicles of 10,000 pounds or above. I think it’s up to us in Canada to take a view at the federal level whether we consider that was an appropriate move or not. The Teamsters’ concerns are very real and something that must not be ignored, but at the same time, we’ve got to balance the fact that this technology is inevitable and it’s removing dull, dirty and dangerous jobs from us humans having to do them, and there are benefits to that as well.
There’s a huge discussion around the job displacement side that needs to be had, but bearing in mind that the technology is coming at us like a freight train, we have to be prepared at some point to accept the inevitable outcomes of that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godsmark and Mr. Ludwig. I’d like to thank both of you for your presentations.
We are going to suspend for five minutes and then continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)