THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT REVIEW PANEL
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
SUBMISSION
BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY
BUFFALO AND PORT ERIE PUBLIC BRIDGE AUTHORITY
NIAGARA FALLS BRIDGE COMMISSION.2
Executive Summary
The single largest component of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – and
contributor to the nation’s prosperity – is trade with the United States of America. Trade
policy initiatives such as the Automotive Agreement, the Canada – US Free Trade
Agreement, and the North American Free Trade Agreement have been exceptionally
successful in stimulating bilateral trade between the two nations. Indeed, this is the
largest and one of the fastest growing bilateral trading relationships in the world.
This trade is not only in finished goods. Provisions of these trade agreements have
reduced the barriers to industrial integration between Canada and the US, leading to
shared production on a vast scale, particularly in the automotive industry, and in many
others, as well. Shared production, shared markets for finished goods, and the move to
“just-in-time” production management techniques have led to massive increases in
commercial truck traffic over the roads of both nations, and on the bridges and border
crossings that connect them. This is nowhere more true than it is in the province of
Ontario and its adjoining American states, Michigan and New York. Today, continued
bilateral trade growth is dependent on the sufficiency and efficiency of transportation
infrastructure, including the provincial highway networks and the international bridges.
Both of these components of the transportation system have become vital parts of
Canada’s national transportation infrastructure, and should be so recognized.
Planning and operation of the international bridges are considered to be
administered well. Canada’s sovereignty interests, an essential consideration in
international trade and transportation, are well attended at these crossing points by
relevant federal agencies. The varying ownership arrangements of the bridge crossings
contribute positively to the efficiency with which they operate. There is no apparent
requirement for further federal involvement in this area. Nonetheless, given the crucial
role that bridges (and other border crossings) play in support of the trade that is so vital to
the emerging Canadian economy, and given that the efficiency and effectiveness of all
border crossings is directly dependent upon the adequacy of the provincial highway
networks that feed them, the need for coordination and planning for land transportation
infrastructure is evident. Ideally, this should involve all interested parties brought
together in a structured organization established and empowered under the aegis of the
National Transportation Act..3
Introduction
“Both countries are committed to the modernization of the shared border to
facilitate legitimate travel, address mutual threats, improve compliance with the laws of
both countries, and efficiently manage increasing volumes of trade and travel to reduce
pressure on border resources and infrastructure.”
This statement, taken from Canada-United States Accord on Our Shared Border –
Update 2000, illustrates the long tradition of peaceful and mutually supportive relations
between the two countries. It speaks, as well, to the future.
As Canada enters the twenty-first century, the nation’s economy clearly is poised
for long-term expansion, a continuation of the growth it has experienced for more than
twenty years. Much of the past growth and the anticipated expansion can be attributed
directly to foresightful national policy on foreign trade. Of particular importance has been
more than three decades of liberalization of trade laws between Canada and the United
States. More recently, Mexico has come to be included in a trading partnership that spans
the North American continent. This effort to ease trade restrictions has led to large
increases in the exchange of finished goods among the three countries. More importantly,
it has contributed to economic rationalization of production across the continent in many
industries. This has led, in turn, to greater economic efficiency, increased production,
and improved competitiveness in world markets for those industries.
Because of the nation’s policies in support of trade liberalization and economic
rationalization, Canada has become a well-integrated member of one of the world’s most
powerful economic blocs. However, Canada’s national transportation policy has not kept
pace with the nation’s new economic realities.
This document will focus briefly on the nature of the emerging Canadian
economy and the trade policies that have shaped it. Next, it will examine the nature of
certain transportation issues arising from the growth of trade as a vital component of the
emerging national economy. It will then discuss matters concerning the operation of
border crossings as they relate to national sovereignty and to the ownership and
operations of border crossing facilities. Finally, it will present suggestions regarding the
development of transportation policy consistent with and supportive of growth in a
rapidly evolving national economy..4
The Role of International Trade in the Canadian Economy
The last two decades have been a time of protracted expansion for the Canadian
economy. The nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown from $272 billion in
1979 to $958 billion in 1999. When adjusted for inflation, the GDP has increased over
that period from $528 billion to about $880 billion. During this time, the nation
experienced only two relatively brief economic downturns, in 1982 and in 1991-92.
Foreign trade expanded even more rapidly than the economy as a whole during
the past twenty years. In 1979, merchandise exports from Canada to the rest of the world
stood at $66 billion and merchandise imports totaled $61 billion. Two-way trade totaled
$127 billion. That year, the nation experienced a positive merchandise trade balance of
almost $5 billion. By 1999, exports reached $361 billion, and imports were $327 billion,
almost a six-fold increase in both. Two-way trade amounted to $688 billion. The trade
balance rose proportionately, to almost $34 billion. Each year throughout this entire
period Canada experienced a positive merchandise trade balance, a significant factor in
fueling the growth that the nation experienced.
Canada’s primary trading partner is the United States. In 1979, merchandise
exports from Canada to the US amounted to about $45 billion and imports to Canada
from the US totaled $44 billion, resulting in a two-way trade volume of almost $90
billion and a positive balance of trade of approximately $1 billion. By 1999, Canadian
exports to the US had risen to $309 billion, and imports from the US had increased to
$249 billion. The two-way trade volume between the two countries grew to $558 billion,
with a positive trade balance of $60 billion. In 1979, Canada-US trade represented 70
percent of the nation’s total trade, and 25 percent of its trade balance. By 1999, Canada-US
trade had grown to 84 percent of Canada’s total trade, and the positive trade balance
with the US offset Canadian negative trade balances of $26 billion with the rest of the
world..5
Trade and Trade Policy on the North American Continent
Canada and United States are partners in the largest and one of the most dynamic
bilateral trading relationships in the world. While this relationship has existed since
Canada achieved nationhood, the implementation of the Canada-US Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) in 1989 was a watershed event in the economic history of both nations.
This agreement called for the phase out of all tariff and most non-tariff barriers to trade
between the two nations. What had been the world’s longest border without military
defenses also became the world’s longest border without barriers to economic exchange.
Five years after FTA, in 1994, a tripartite agreement between the US, Canada and
Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was put into effect. NAFTA
provided for the elimination of virtually all tariffs between the partner nations over a
fifteen-year period, the reduction of non-tariff barriers to trade, and the liberalization of
private investment. It also addressed many other issues regarding the trade relationships
among the signatory countries.
In its broadest scope, NAFTA has resulted in the creation of one of the most
powerful, unified, economic blocs in the world, with a regional GDP exceeding $15
trillion and combined natural, technological, human, and capital resources unmatched
anywhere on the globe. Moreover, the 400 million consumers in the region represent the
world’s richest market for goods and services. The elimination of tariffs and the reduction
of non-tariff barriers have resulted in a rapid growth of trade among the member nations
as North American companies have become better able to serve this market unimpeded
by artificial costs and restrictions.
Perhaps less well understood, and certainly less frequently mentioned, NAFTA
also has made possible the rationalization of economic production across the continent.
The concept of rationalization of production is a significant one in understanding the
overall importance of trade and the movement of traded goods on the continent.
Rationalization means that firms locate various elements of their production processes in
the areas where they can be done most efficiently and with the smallest contribution to
the overall cost of the product. Since a rationalized production process may require that a
product move through stages of production at several locations, efficient transportation is
vital to the success of such a process..6
As a reflection of the imperatives that drive economic rationalization, US and
Canadian firms traditionally have retained product development and design-, capital- and
skill-intensive manufacturing, and marketing activities in the home countries, while
shifting labor-intensive operations requiring limited skills to countries where labor costs
are lower. NAFTA has made the Canadian border less of an obstacle to production
sharing between these countries in terms of high value-added components of the
production process, and has added Mexico as a feasible location for labor-intensive
operations. The resulting improvements in efficiency and productivity of many North
American producers are leading to the enhanced competitiveness of their products in
domestic and world markets.
The effects of unimpeded trade and economic rationalization on the bilateral
economic relationship between the US and Canada have been particularly pronounced. In
1988, the last year prior to the activation of the FTA, merchandise trade between the two
countries was approximately $198 billion. In 1993, the fifth year in which the FTA was
in force, bilateral merchandise trade had grown to $279 billion, an increase of 41 percent.
By 1998, five years into NAFTA, trade in goods between the two countries had grown to
$503 billion, well more than double the pre-FTA figure. This growth from what was
already a large base has ensured that the US-Canada trading relationship remains the
largest in the world. It is difficult to predict precisely the magnitude of and increases in
trade among the NAFTA countries. For at least the next decade or more, however, it is
probably safe to say that the minimum growth in bilateral trade that can be expected is
somewhere in between the long- and short-term trend rates, and that it will start at or near
the current rate. Data from Statistics Canada puts this figure at about 11 percent for 1999.
High levels of sectoral two-way trade and foreign direct investment are clear
indicators that integration and rationalization are taking place, with the result that the
interdependence of manufacturing industries in the two nations is growing rapidly. This
interdependence runs counter to the traditional nationalist ideal of Canadian sovereignty.
Two-way trade in industries such as motor vehicles, aircraft, rail locomotives and rolling
stock, and computing and communications devices, comprises about half of all US-Canada
merchandise trade, with the automotive sector alone accounting for 28 percent
($126 billion) of the 1998 total. US foreign direct investment in Canada that year
amounted to more than $150 billion with $68 billion of the total invested in the
manufacturing sector..7
Regional Economic Relationships
The developments in trade and economic restructuring that are taking place on a
national and international scale are reflected in developments at the state/province level,
and on even smaller scales, as well. In no case is this more evident or more significant
than in the adjoining State and Province of Michigan and Ontario. These regions are the
industrial core areas of their respective countries. The continent’s vast automotive
industry is centered there, as are many of the industries that support it. The integration of
the US and Canadian auto industries began in earnest in the 1960s with early trade
liberalization accords specific to that industry, but the more recent agreements have
accelerated the process.
This concentration of automotive enterprises and their close integration across the
Canadian-American border is shown clearly in trade data. Of a 1998 total of almost $27
billion in exports from Michigan to Canada, about $18 billion was comprised of autos
($2.6 billion), trucks ($1.5 billion), and motor vehicle parts ($13.8 billion), most destined
for Ontario. Of the $56 billion in Canadian exports to Michigan, about $44 billion was
comprised of autos ($30 billion), trucks ($7.5 billion), and automotive parts ($7 billion).
Most of those Canadian automotive exports to Michigan originated in Ontario. While the
auto industry accounts for more Michigan-Ontario trade than any other, significant
amounts of trade occur in many other industries, including chemicals, machinery and
machine tools, metal products, furniture, and lumber.
Michigan and Ontario benefit from more than just the direct exchanges between
the two areas. The geography of the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada
is dominated by the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes form a natural barrier to transportation
by road and rail between the key manufacturing regions of the two countries. Road and
rail are the traditionally preferred modes of transportation for many goods in process and
finished goods. As a result, certain areas where cross-border transit is least impeded by
natural barriers have become vital conduits for road and rail shipments.
The border crossings between southeastern Michigan and southwestern Ontario
are such conduits. They serve the immediate areas in which they are located, but
shipments from all over both nations (and, increasingly, Mexico as NAFTA takes hold)
also funnel into these areas to utilize the transportation infrastructure and border crossing
facilities..8
According to estimates reported by the US Department of Transportation, the
largest portion of the merchandise trade between US and Canada, about one-third of the
total, uses crossings on the Michigan/Ontario border. In 1998, this represented more
than $120 billion in shipments. Preliminary trade data for 1999 indicate that this figure
grew to exceed $130 billion. More than seventy percent of the dollar volume of trade
passing through Michigan-Ontario gateways is carried in commercial trucks.
Similarly, in the Niagara region, border crossings between southern Ontario and
New York have become increasingly important conduits for trade between the US and
Canada. Shipments moving from Ontario to any of the eastern states are likely to use
border crossings in this area.
The movement of goods in these areas is not dominated by a single industry to the
extent that it is farther to the west. The auto industry and its suppliers play an important
but not overriding role in this region, where a wide array of other industries are located
and many other types of goods are produced.
Nonetheless, the same pattern of rationalization and integration of production in
this region has led to rapid increases in the flow of traded goods between the two nations.
In addition, container traffic which utilizes east coast seaports in either the US or Canada
uses crossings in the Niagara area and southwestern Ontario because these crossings are
on the most direct routes for in-transit shipments to and from the central manufacturing
regions of both countries.
Fourteen percent of Ontario’s exports to the United States cross the Peace
Bridge and 75 percent of this total is destined (in order of value) to New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.
Two-way truck volume in 1999 reached 1,480,000 units (see Annex “B”). The total
value of trade carried is estimated at $38 billion.
Bridges under the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission carried a similar range
of Canadian, particularly Ontario, origin exports to the eastern United States.
Truck volume in 1999 reached 1.1 million vehicles (see Annex C). It is estimated
that the annual value of trade carried is over $22 billion and that ten percent of all
vehicle crossings between Canada and the United States occurred at these bridges..9
In the last five years, for example, trade between Canada and New York State has
grown by about 50 percent, consistent with overall growth rate in bilateral trade for the
same period. Over the Ontario–New York frontier the value of goods transported by road
is now approaching $80 billion annually. Clearly, then, the trade corridors between
Ontario and the northern United States are vital to the health and well being of both the
local and national economies..10
International Bridges and Canadian Sovereignty
Every border crossing point – roads, railways, tunnels, water ports, airports, and
bridges – between Canada and the United States of America constitutes a location where
Canada’s sovereignty can be challenged and must be exercised.
The final quarter of the twentieth century was characterized by massive shifts in
the patterns of movement of people and products across the Canadian-American
international border. Increases in international travel were largely accommodated by new
airline capacities and existing land and bridge crossings. Largely, international bridges
have facilitated the spectacular and continuing increase in international trade between the
two nations. Today, it is estimated that over ninety percent of bilateral trade is carried by
road and rail, and that the bulk of this movement crosses bridges between the Canadian
Province of Ontario and the American States of Michigan and New York. This has
created capacity demands to which bridge operators have successfully responded. It has
also created similar demands on Federal government officials engaged in the enforcement
of Canada’s sovereignty.
Federal agencies visibly on the front line of Canada’s sovereignty are the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency, Immigration Canada, and Agriculture Canada. These
agencies have specific review and enforcement mandates related to the inflow into
Canada of goods and people and, where applicable, export controls on the movement of
goods out of Canada. Physical facilities enabling federal agencies to execute their
mandates are provided, at no cost, by the owners and/or operators of bridge crossings,
tunnel crossings, and airports. The provision of work-related equipment, though, is the
responsibility of the Canadian federal agencies. Officials of these agencies enjoy the
support inside Canada from neighbouring police authorities, which are provided,
according to circumstances of location, by federal, provincial, or municipal forces.
Behind the scenes, several federal departments have interests at border crossings. These
include Health Canada, Transport Canada, and Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Provincial government Departments of Transport operate closely to bridge and land
crossings to enforce vehicle safety requirements.
With the shift of commercial traffic to international bridges and the concomitant
increases in trade and truck crossings, new challenges to Canada’s sovereignty arise from
several areas. For example, the demand for additional truck-carrying capacity has created.11
a large demand for additional drivers. In the United States, the Prisoner Release Program
has been used to recruit and train selected candidates as drivers. Convicted criminals,
however, are not eligible to visit Canada. Because of this American policy, Canadian
Immigration officials have had to implement more stringent border-crossing procedures.
A separate challenge arises from “just-in-time” delivery practices, widely used in the
automotive industry, which have tightened delivery schedules for many commercial
carriers. Failure to meet these schedules can cause plant production shutdowns and
business losses. The Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (and U.S. Customs) has
responded to these challenges with new programs designed to pre-approve clearance of
shipments before the carrier arrives at the international border. This works to reduce the
amount of processing time required at the crossing point and allows the cargo to reach its
destination in a timely manner. Clearly, such programs do not have universal application.
They do, however, serve to facilitate the flow of bilateral trade, ameliorate increased
workloads on Customs officials, and enable these officials to focus their activities on
shipments which require attention at the crossing point.
These challenges affect not only the federal officials engaged in border-crossing
activities, but also the owners and operators of international bridges. These bridges
have evolved from being principally a method of conveying visitors between the United
States and Canada into essential elements of Canada’s foreign trade. Given the
importance of foreign trade to Canada’s (and especially Ontario’s) GDP, international
bridges constitute an essential asset on the balance sheet of Canada’s economic
prosperity. This is attributable to the exponential growth of Canadian-American trade. It
is expected that this growth in trade will be sustained and continued between companies
of both nations (see Annex ‘A’).
International bridges are, therefore, an element in Canada’s sovereignty and
should be so viewed in policy terms. Bridge owners and operators have responded to the
new circumstances by seeking and implementing measures intended to facilitate truck
and passenger vehicle flows through crossing points. Specifically, “plaza” spaces have
been expanded to accommodate additional capacity for Customs’ inspection and
additional parking for trucks has been created. At one bridge, a pre-processing facility
has been constructed and operates to facilitate US-bound commercial vehicles. At
another bridge, Canadian and American authorities have collaborated to establish and
operate dedicated lanes for use by approved frequent travelers. Bridge owners and.12
operators have worked to construct additional office and operational areas for federal
agencies concerned with cross-border traffic and have improved access to and from
adjacent provincial highways.
International bridges have become a clearly identifiable and essential element of
Canada’s foreign trade network and an equally identifiable part of its national
transportation infrastructure. Without exception, these bridges depart from and arrive in
Canada on space that has a considerable federal government presence, and, in the
arrival area, involves the exercise of Canadian sovereignty. It can be argued, therefore,
that bridges can be viewed as an element of Canada’s national transportation
infrastructure..13
Organizational Structures and Ownership
International bridges linking Canada and the United States are located in New
Brunswick and Ontario. Bridges in the Niagara peninsula adjacent to the State of New
York and on the southwestern Ontario-Michigan border carry 60 percent of passenger
vehicle and 89 percent of commercial vehicle traffic into and out of Canada.
Ownership arrangements of the bridges vary from joint Canada-US holdings to
complete private sector ownership. In the latter case, two bridges are owned and
operated by American companies. This type of ownership arrangement is common on the
US-Mexico border. No bridges, however, are owned by companies in the Canadian
private sector. Joint ownership arrangements also vary. The United States government,
while exercising American sovereignty on international bridges, does not play an
ownership role along the Canadian frontier. Typically, American owners are various
state governments while, in Canada, ownership rests with the federal government or the
government of Ontario. A Federal Crown Corporation created to assume the non-marine
assets of the St. Lawrence Seaway Commission owns two international bridges along the
St. Lawrence River.
The Canadian Government is the ultimate co-owner of the Blue Water Bridge and
the Peace Bridge. Both bridges operate under their own Acts of Parliament, which set
out procedures and authorities enabling the bridges to fully operate at arm’s length from
their ultimate owner. Provision was made in both Acts for the creation of bi-national
commissions to oversee ongoing management. Most significantly, both bridges operate
as businesses, which earn revenues mainly from tolls. All costs of operations are charged
against this revenue. All tolls collected in Canada are retained by the bridges, which
receive no funding from the federal government. Canadian members of the bi-national
commissions (known as “Authorities”) are appointed by Order-in-Council and are
typically drawn from local communities. The Commissioners serve for fixed terms.
The bridges are significant employers within their respective communities and
total employment is matched or exceeded by the number of employees of Federal
departments and agencies exercising jurisdictions over arriving visitors and import
shipment. In addition to payroll expenses, considerable operational expenditures are
made to local suppliers of goods and services. International bridges, while exercising a
national role, are also seen as local assets to the neighbouring communities..14
The Peace Bridge Authority operates with a Commission consisting of American
and Canadian Commissioners and a unified management structure. The Blue Water
Bridge Authority, while authorized to have a bi-national commission, consists of
Canadian-appointed Commissioners only and operates with separate management
structures located in Point Edward, Ontario and in Lansing, Michigan.
The Niagara Falls Bridge Commission is a United States corporation created by a
Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress and licenses under the Extra Provincial
Corporations Act of the Province of Ontario. The Commissioners, appointed equally by
Ontario and New York, oversee the Commission’s single management structure, and plan
for capital improvements and repairs. Similarly, this Commission, which operates three
bridges, and the Federal agencies, which operate on the bridges, are major local
employers and contributors to the regional economy.
While organizational streamlining would create desirable efficiencies for some
bridge operators, overall international bridges are considered to be well run. This is
largely because most bridges are operated as businesses, while still managing to
accommodate the regulatory needs of both national governments. Nevertheless,
international bridges, particularly those which provide access to commercial carriers, will
face steady increases in traffic growth throughout the near future.
The role that international bridges play in ensuring Canada’s prosperity, the fact
that most bridges are not dependent upon public funding but do provide public services,
and the fact that bridges have continually responded positively to change provide ample
evidence that the existing structural and ownership arrangements can meet the future
requirements of all involved. Similarly, existing regulatory cover for the operation of
bridges owned indirectly by Canadian governments appears to be appropriate. This does
not mean, however, that all is well with the nation’s transportation policy. If it is clear
that Canada’s border crossings are handling the increased traffic that has resulted from
growing volumes of trade and increased economic integration among the US, Canada,
and Mexico, it is not so apparent that the nation’s highway transportation policies and
programs will support such growth..15
Implications for National Transportation Policy
Canada’s national policies regarding foreign trade are well articulated and widely
understood. So, too, are the consequences of those policies. The results for the nation
have been enhanced competitiveness, healthy, consistent economic growth, and a high
and increasing degree of integration of production operations across national borders.
None of this could have occurred had the national government not set the country on this
course.
However, it may not be enough merely to establish and promote trade policy. If
the nation is to enjoy the full benefits that trade and economic policy make possible, then
it may be necessary for the national government to take a more active role in formulating
policies and plans in other areas that until now generally have not been regarded as
within the purview of national government. In particular, it may be appropriate for the
national government to play an expanded role in highway transportation planning and
policy.
The national government initially became involved in transportation issues
through its conscious adoption of policies to promote and subsidize Canadian railroads in
the late-nineteenth century. The resulting completion of a transcontinental railroad was
the key step in the forging of a true Canadian nation from what had been, until this event,
a confederation of disparate peoples spread thinly across a vast and sweeping landscape.
The nature of maritime and air transportation also led to national initiatives to regulate,
plan, and develop these forms of transportation. In contrast, road transportation always
has been regarded as being within local or provincial purview.
Much the same could have been said for the United States until the 1950s, and for
many of the same reasons. At that time, based on his experiences with German
transportation systems during World War II, President Eisenhower initiated a program to
build a new network of high speed, limited-access highways across the United States.
Though this was not the first attempt by the American government to become involved in
road transportation, it was clearly the most ambitious, and the first to include significant
resources for systematic design, planning, and construction. The interstate system has
reshaped completely that nation’s economic and social structures. Few major residential,
commercial, or industrial construction projects are undertaken in the US without
interstate highway access being taken into account. State and local road construction.16
plans are influenced heavily by the Interstate highway system. National economic and
social priorities, in turn, dictate the policies, plans, and implementation decisions that
shape the Interstate highway system. It should be noted that recent US federal highway
legislation under TEA 21gives funding priority to the development of corridors and
borders to support growth in the movement of goods resulting from the implementation
of NAFTA. Indeed, certain international bridges that are managed internationally
are already accessing Federal Highways Administration financing for infrastructure
projects.
The responsibility for developing US highway transportation policy, plans, and
programs rests with the US Department of Transportation. In addition to the highway
planning and coordination that takes place at the national level, the American government
also encourages and supports regional highway planning. States play a central role in the
process, and regional organizations (e.g. the Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments) may be involved, as well. States play the central role in the actual
construction of roads that are part of the national highway system, with varying degrees
of financial support from the national government. The result is a national initiative for
highway infrastructure investment that also recognizes local needs, concerns, priorities,
limitations, and financial capacities
In Canada, the task of planning and constructing highways rests, with only minor
exceptions, solely in the hands of provincial governments. Planning and construction of
highway projects has been based on local and provincial perceptions of need and the
availability of resources at the provincial level. This stands in contrast to the successful
US model, as well as the historical approach in Canada to rail, maritime, and air
transportation issues, which play a substantial role in national government policy
development and planning. As a result, highway infrastructure development in Canada
has not kept pace, in many instances, with the growth in demand for highway
infrastructure that has resulted from, and will continue to be influenced by, the growth
and evolution of the nation’s economy..17
At national and provincial levels, coordination of international transportation
infrastructure issues is effected on an ad hoc basis, which in past years was sufficient to
meet the perceived needs. Exponential trade growth between Canada and the United
States has increased the need for such coordination to the point where national,
provincial, and state governments must address mutual requirements to facilitate trade
flows.
The Canadian government should consider the creation, within the National
Transportation Act, of a policy and planning body to deal with national highway
transportation issues. The body should be comprised of all relevant levels of Canadian
governments and users. While recognizing the historical prerogatives of provincial
governments, such a body should cooperate in the funding of high priority international
roadway infrastructure. It should provide direction, coordination, and technical
assistance to the separate entities, which now have those responsibilities. It also should
serve as a means of bringing together these and other interested parties to collaborate in
the shaping of a national highway transportation policy that takes into account a wide
range of factors that determine national needs for highway infrastructure. It should
establish formal consultative arrangements with its American counterparts to seek
solutions to bi-national transportation issues that affect the movement of people and
goods across the Canada – US border. In this way, the nation can move collectively
toward a much-needed national perspective on highway transportation issues, provide
support for the provincial governments, and respect the traditional role provincial
governments play in highway construction..18
Respectfully submitted:
For: Blue Water Bridge Commission
Point Edward, Ontario
For: Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority
Fort Erie, Ontario
For: Niagara Falls Bridge Commission
Niagara Falls, Ontario
December 2000.19
ANNEX ‘A’
Figure 1 Blue Water Bridge Projected Two-way Passenger Vehicle Volumes
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
Milions of Vehicles
Traffic Forecast with Casino Growth Trend Based on Linear Regression (1972 to 1998)
The passenger vehicle growth trend based on 1984 to 1998 Traffic Volumes was adjusted to reflect the
term total vehicle growth trend demonstrated by volumes between 1972 and 1998.
Passenger Vehicle Bas
Trend Forecast
(Millions)
Without Casino
2010 5.02
2020 5.56
With Casino
2010 5.70
2020 6.24
Figure 2 Blue Water Bridge Projected Two-way Commercial Vehicle Volumes
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
Milions of Vehicles
Growth Trend Based on Linear Regression
Note:
commercial vehicle growth trend based on 1984 to 1998 Traffic Volumes was adjusted to reflect the long term total vehi
growth trend demonstrated by volumes between 1972 and 1998.
Commercial Vehicle Ba
Trend Forecast
(Millions)
With/Without Casino
2010 2.24
2020 3.00.20
ANNEX ‘B’
Ontario-United States Exports and Imports of Goods ($92 Millions)
Peace Bridge Annual Truck Volume
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
Exports of goods (left)
Imports of goods (left)
Peace Bridge Annual Truck Volume (right).21
ANNEX ‘C’
Forecast of Passenger Vehicles Using NFBC Crossings
Forecast of Commercial Vehicles Using NFBC Crossings
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Low Traffic Forecast
Vehicles per Year
Strategic Forecast
Forecasts Observed
18 Year Trend