Today Thu Fri
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 23, 2012
Chance of Rain
27°/16°
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
22°/13°
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
19°/13°

23 Comments

news

Bubbles to Clear the Air of Diesel Exhaust?

20090513bubbles.jpg


A small crowd of approximately twenty people, including the very short person pictured above, gathered on Tuesday before Union Station’s Front Street entrance to blow bubbles with soap, after being denied the right to do so inside the station. They did this because they’re upset with Metrolinx, the GTA’s newish regional transit authority, for its refusal to consider running electric trains on a pair of proposed regional rail expansions. The expansions, which as planned will accommodate only diesel-burning locomotives, would link Union Station to Pearson Airport and more than triple service on GO Transit’s Georgetown corridor between Union Station and Malton on opening day.
Actually, the pictured individual might have been slightly more interested in bubbles and the blowing thereof than in the ramifications of different kinds of rail infrastructure. We did not seek comment.
But there were also adults there, and THEY very definitely were blowing bubbles in protest. Yes, the demonstration was small and maybe just a bit over-reliant on the fickle political power of the soapy sphere. But the issues are real and pressing.


The event was arranged in the style of a flash mob by a group of concerned citizens who call themselves the Clean Train Coalition. They told Torontoist that this protest would be only the first and quietest of several to come.
The Coalition’s members were quick to assure us that they love transit. Their problem with Metrolinx’s planned rail expansion isn’t about the expansion itself, but rather the diesel-electric trains that Metrolinx will have riding the rails, and some details about how those rails will be laid out. The Coalition is concerned that the diesel-burners will fill the air with dirty airborne particulate matter, which they say could cause health problems for people living near the lines. They’re also championing a handful of other quality of life issues related to the expansion. (You can read more about their position in their FAQ.)

20090513bubbles3.jpg
A map of the proposed rail expansion (in yellow). Courtesy of Metrolinx.


The group’s proposed solution to the diesel quandary is for Metrolinx to electrify all the new tracks, so carriers can run pollution-free electric trains on them. The Coalition is extremely adamant about this. In response to an emailed request for clarification of the group’s goals, member Carina Cojeen told us: “what we are asking for is that NONE of the new rolling stock on this corridor be diesel. We ask for electrification from the very beginning, both for the GO service and for the UPRL [Union-Pearson Rail-Link] trains.”
There’s a reason they’ve chosen this moment to press their issue: the proposed expansion’s mandatory public project assessment period is officially underway. This assessment is part of what Metrolinx describes as a “new streamlined EA [environment assessment] process.” The streamlined EA proceeds on the basis of a compressed timetable designed specifically to begin and end in the span of six months. The assessment’s one-hundred-twenty-day public comment phase began on April 2, so a full third of it is gone already. Perhaps most maddening for the Coalition is the fact that Metrolinx is not obliged to consider alternative proposals to their existing plan. They only need to hear public opinion on what they’ve drawn up already.
20090513bubbles2.jpg
Metrolinx, for their part, says that they will absolutely consider running electric trains on the new tracks, eventually. The page devoted to this flap on the expansion proposal’s Public Comment Portal puts it like so: “The Georgetown corridor is being planned now to allow for electrification in the future. In the meantime we need to get on with required service improvements on this corridor.”
In other words, in the opinion of Metrolinx, there’s an urgency to building these expansions that makes it impractical to spend time exploring technologies that are not currently used as part of Toronto’s regional rail service. Metrolinx would rather retrofit later than delay construction today. Also, electric rail is more costly to build than diesel.
But the Clean Train Coalition is having none of that.
“Build it once. Build it right,” said flash mob participant Keith Brooks. Mike Sullivan, another participant, warned that the new lines could possibly become “the single busiest diesel rail corridor on the planet,” if allowed to go ahead unchecked. There was a shared sense among the Clean Train Coalition members we spoke to that electric regional rail in Toronto is long overdue. The question is whether or not there’s harm in waiting even longer.
GTA citizens with strong feelings on the matter can register their opinions with Metrolinx until July 30.
Photos by Nick Kozak/Torontoist.
Additional reporting by Hamutal Dotan.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://undefined andomano

    Shame on those protestors! They stand for something environmentally friendly, and yet they are blowing soap bubbles which would enter the waterways untreated! lol :P

  • http://undefined snout

    What Happened to all the GREEN talk from the Liberals you have to ask yourself.
    The Georgetown corridor service expansion, and the Newmarket Line expansion (which GO/Metrolinx never mention in the same sentence) will add over 400 dirty diesel trains to the airshed of the west end every day making this the largest single new source of air pollution in Toronto.
    Why would you do then chose dirty diesel when electric trains are everywhere (including the US) and heck they are even built by Bombardier who could use the jobs. Electricity NOW is not more expensive when you factor in the lifetime costs (electric is cheaper) and if you can believe the vague promise of electrification in only 15 years (why buy rolling stock twice in less than 20 years that makes no taxpayer sense). Its a mystery to everyone why GO/Metrolinx?Liberals are scared to even utter the word Electric.
    Like most people I cant figure out why, when you have a choice, you would pick the dirtier technology.No business anywhere along those two lines would be allowed to concentrate new pollution in the manner that the Liberals are pushing through.
    Where did the GREEN go Dalton ?

  • http://undefined Ben

    Diesel or not, those trains will give a huge net environmental improvement by taking many cars off the road.

  • http://undefined tapesonthefloor

    not only that, but look at that first photo. do you *really* think that wee girl knows what she’s protesting? what kind of parents would bring her to such a rally? shouldn’t she be in school, instead of being paraded around in the name of a cause she doesn’t even understand?
    people these days.

  • http://undefined Ben

    How stupid do you think kids are? Do you think that a kid couldn’t understand green house gas, or smog?

  • http://undefined tapesonthefloor

    um.

  • http://undefined Toby von Meistersinger

    Electric trains require infrastructure and capital investment – either third rail (as used on Metro-North and the LIRR in New York) or catenary (used in Montreal, New Jersey, and the Northeast Corridor. Both electricity delivery systems would require significant capital investment. Either of the electrical systems would also restrict freight traffic on the lines traffic due to clearance restrictions. There are also reliability issues
    in snow and ice with both systems, as well as the cost of fixing and maintaining the infrastructure.
    Also, it would require a fleet of electric locomotives or multiple unit electric trains which could not be used on non-electric lines and reduces operational flexibility and increases fleet procurement and maintenance costs.
    Plus, electric trains are not pollution free, since the electricity has to come from somewhere, and there really isn’t any such thing as pollution free electricity no matter what the source.
    Diesel is the best bang for buck.

  • http://www.bitpicture.com Marc Lostracco

    This particular issue aside, my three-year-old knows that (a), blowing bubbles is fun, and (b), fuel exhaust is stinky.
    It’s not like they’re bringing their kids to protest outside abortion clinics or standing them in front of tanks.
    As far as exposing children to issues that they can’t possibly understand, nobody complains when people take their kids to church, yes?

  • http://www.torontoist.com David Topping
  • http://undefined Peter Kucirek

    Not quite. The ARL trains consist of 2 cars each, holding about 30 people. Even at 15-minute intervals (which is the proposed headway, I believe), that’s about 240 people/hr – not a heck of a lot of cars. Also, there is no connection to the west of Pearson; missing the 1M people who live in Peel Region.
    Taking the ridership into account, it is not clear whether there is net environmental benefit from the project.

  • http://undefined Peter Kucirek

    I disagree. While indeed the overall cost of the project increases if electrified, you’ve overlooked some of the specifics of the project:
    - Fleet Flexibility: You’ve missed a key fact: The service provider isn’t GO, it’s SNC Lavelin. Furthermore, while it is true that electric units are not compatible with other GTA track, even the diesel trains are not supposed to be running outside of the corridor. SNC Lavelin’s 40-year-old diesel cars are being run on the corridor exclusively.
    - Restricting Freight: Two additional tracks are being added to the corrdior exclusively for the Air-Rail-Link (ARL). These are the tracks which need to be electrified, not the whole right-of-way.
    - Snow/Ice: I’m not an expert at vehicle design, but presumably this is not a new problem. It snows in many places where electric trains are run, so this is practically a non-issue.
    - Clean electricity: Of course electricity is not 100% emissions-free, but it does a damn better job than combustion engines do. Moreover, a good chunk of our electricity in Ontario is already emissions-free (ie, nuclear), and the province has ambitious plans to build more (nuclear AND wind farms).
    Altogether, electrification is still a feasible, if more expensive, option for the corridor.

  • http://undefined montauk

    zing!

  • http://undefined dowlingm

    Peter – where did you get that number from?
    Wiki says Budd RDC-1s carry 90 passengers, RDC-2s (small baggage section) 70 and RDC-3 (large baggage section) 48. Does UPRL propose to use RDC-3s with wider seat pitch and thus 30 seats?

  • http://www.bitpicture.com Marc Lostracco

    SERIOUS BUSINESS.

  • http://undefined Jason Bomers

    Please note that GO has already planned to electrify the Lakeshore line to reduce emissions and speed up transit. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/15/transit-subway.html. The Georgetown-corridor is more densely populated and could benefit more from reduced emissions. There is also plan to electrify Georgetown in 15 years.
    Also note that health care costs in Toronto for traffic pollution are 2.2 billion a year. GO will only reduce pollution if all the trains they add (and SNC) to the corridor are full. Electrification would pay for itself by saving health care costs (never mind the cost to build it again), probably even before the 15 years it takes them to electrify.
    This issue comes down to vision and leadership. We need to push Metrolinx and our politicians to invest in a healthy future.

  • http://undefined Peter Kucirek

    My apologies, my numbers were recalled (poorly) from memory. Although, it could be possible that the 48-passenger figure on Wikipedia is for crush-load (standing room), but this is speculation.
    Even with the higher per-car capacity, my point is not diminished: that it is not clear that the ARL will yield a large reduction in automobile trips to the airport.

  • http://undefined Jason Bomers

    From what I understand, the train cars (2) can carry 60 passengers each, but because of the price per ride ($20-30) to start there will only be 25% ridership (30 people). What I don’t get is that why doesn’t GO take people to the airport (they’ll be going that way anyway at similar intervals)? Metrolinx should cut their losses with SNC and reduce emissions by putting airport travelers on GO trains. If SNC can make money taking people to the airport, why can’t GO?

  • http://undefined Vincent Clement

    Except that the Environmental Protection Agency is tightening diesel emissions from cars, trains, trucks, ships and other diesel-powered vehicles. So while there may be many more trains, the amount of air pollution generated by diesel trains may equal or be less than what residents experience today.
    We have been going through a similar exercise in Windsor regarding the new access road to the third crossing to Detroit. The City of Windsor has a preferred plan that differs from MTO plans. Essentially the City wants longer tunnel sections because it believes that will mitigate pollution from trucks.
    The City ignores that trucks will be subject to the new EPA regulations which will have a greater positive impact on air pollution that longer tunnels (where the air still has to be exhausted somewhere).

  • http://undefined susanj

    Hi there, that wee child is my 6 year old daughter, ily.Lily was attending this after school protest as she lives about 60 meters dfrom the tracks. She is bright and aware of the issues at hand, and was there supporting the Clean Train Coalition. This isn’t her first Clean train event and it won’t be her last.

  • http://undefined snout

    Others have answered the points but I add that as GO is already planning to go electric on Lakeshore and promises to consider electric on Georgetown in 15 years one has to ask would it not be better to wait and do the planning once and go with clean electric than waste money by building the system twice?
    I would bet that most readers here would like a few hundred million dollars spent on creating green energy to replace the coal at Nanticoke. That solves the “Plus, electric trains are not pollution free, since the electricity has to come from somewhere” argument doesn’t it?

  • http://undefined dowlingm

    Jason, I agree that GO is the better solution for the airport – even if THEY were the ones operating RDCs in the beginning. However, GO were deliberately excluded from the process, as the Provincial and Federal interests were determined to make it a PPP. Therefore, you should ask your local MPP and MP why they did that.

  • http://undefined Screen Shot

    How is bringing a child to a rally with a dozen people sitting around blowing bubbles and engaging the population in constructive conversation having a negative impact on the child’s life, i wish i didn’t read your thoughtless comment :(

  • http://undefined Screen Shot

    I like the idea of a group trying to put some pressure on Metrolinx to build more eco-friendy transit. Although the first thing that comes to mind is that even if the trains were electric, the majority of our energy comes from dirty production (Oil based). So now I’m wondering if it’s more productive to lobby for green energy supply in Ontario, or electric transit that may eventually come from eco-friendly electricity. I would say do both if possible, so keep it up.