Edgewater Hotel Sign Comes Down
The Art of Not Knowing
If You Tweet It, He Will Come
Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
The Daily Photoist: November 20, 2009
Yesterday, Ontario's minister of the environment gave his approval to Metrolinx's Georgetown South Service Expansion/Union-Pearson Rail Link (GSSE/UPRL) project. The minister's decision is the final step in the project's provincial environmental assessment process. The project will be a boon to transit in the GTA, but not everyone is pleased.
The GSSE/UPRL project will result in a massive expansion of the Georgetown South rail corridor that runs through Toronto's west end, in order to accommodate increased commuter and freight traffic. It will also establish a rail link between Union Station and Pearson Airport, to be operated by a private carrier.
We've posted repeatedly about the controversy surrounding this project. Essentially, the rail corridor expansion means more trains. Some people living in communities along the tracks would like these new trains to be electric, to avoid possible adverse effects from diesel exhaust.
Metrolinx, while officially sympathetic to these concerns, has always insisted that the trains need to run on diesel, for cost and time reasons (electrified tracks are more expensive to build and would require additional study). Also, Metrolinx says the tracks will be built in such a way that they'll be possible to electrify later. They say electrification is part of their "fifteen year plan" for the corridor.
The minister of environment's decision is permission for Metrolinx to go ahead with plans to build its tracks exclusively for diesel trains, against the wishes of protest groups like the Clean Train Coaltion, an umbrella group incorporating various individuals and community coalitions. The Clean Train Coalition has orchestrated most of the bigger demonstrations against the plan. David McKeown, Toronto's medical officer of health, was also publicly opposed to the plan, though he recently backed off on some of his strongest claims against the project [pdf].
The minister's decision isn't insensitive to the concerns of protestors. It contains a list of eighteen "strict" provisos to which Metrolinx must adhere. Metrolinx must, among other things, establish a working group to assist with developing an air quality monitoring plan for the corridor. The minister further stipulates that the working group "shall include one or more individuals from organizations in the study area, such as the Clean Train Coalition."
The decision also obligates Metrolinx to buy the cleanest possible diesel locomotives for the GO trains it plans to run along the corridor (GO Transit merged with Metrolinx last May). Specifically, the decision requests the purchase of locomotives compliant with U.S. EPA "Tier 4" emissions standards, which don't come into effect until 2015. Tier 4 locomotives are allegedly squeaky clean, but aren't yet commercially available. Metrolinx will need to start using them exclusively as soon as they are.
Initially, there was no mention of Tier 4 locomotives in Metrolinx's plans. They had promised to purchase Tier 2 locomotives, the current EPA standard. The EPA estimates that Tier 4 engines will emit 90% less particulate matter and 80% less NOx (a particularly nasty airborne irritant) than Tier 2.
How do protestors feel, now that immediate electrification is out of the question? Here's the subject line from The Clean Train Coalition's latest press release:
CLEAN TRAIN COALITION LET DOWN BY MOE DECISION ON METROLINX EA
Eloquent. Being a regional transit authority like Metrolinx means, evidently, not being able to please all the people all the time. But at least when all this is over we'll never have to take a TTC bus to Pearson ever again. (And the Georgetown GO line will have much better service.)
Good deal?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Good deal. It was amazing to see all kinds of transit advocates argue against this badly needed transit expansion. (Equally amusing when the same people didn't say anything about massive expansion [pdf] of diesel bus service all over the city.)
My position is somewhere in the middle. More GO service is good for commuters and good for the environment, and it should happen soon; however, vague assurances that the line will be electrified at an unspecified future time are not acceptable. Metrolinx should commit to a specific time-frame within the next 5 to 10 years.
"...at least when all this is over we'll never have to take a TTC bus to Pearson ever again."
You can pay $25 (or whatever) for the train to Pearson, but I'll take the TTC to Pearson for free with my Metropass.
It'll take you at least twice the time, and Metropasses are over 100 dollars if my memory serves me right :P
Plus, unless you're doing an open jaw trip, most people won't bother to purchase a metropass if they're leaving the city for a few days.
i also assume there will be late night/all night train service.
or am i assuming incorrectly?
I'd love there to be electric trains. However, from David McKay's sustainable energy book, a diesel high speed train (we're not even getting high speed) is about 3 times as efficient as a bus and about 8 times as efficient as a car. Combine that with the fact that it has to be easier to build a clean engine on a train than in a road vehicle (lots more room to play with) and it's hard to see how the overall effect on pollution won't be negative.
The real news here is Trains! To! The! Airport!. Real ones, not even silly Vancouver-style make-hundreds-of-stops subway trains! Toronto enters the 1990s! And it's not going to be Via running them, so it might even turn out to be a sensibly run service.
If the tracks will be built in a way that makes them able to be electrified them later, then there's really no problem. I can wait for the 21st century.
I hope that when they consider the train cars themselves, they accomodate for larger amounts of luggage than normal. This may seem obvious but some airport trains are just regular cars (London to Gatwick for instance) and people wind up with bags all over the place.
I look forward to taking this train in 25 years.
I didn't previously know about the Tier 4 EPA standards, but they seem to be good news. If there are 90% less particulate emissions, one would expect the objections of the Clean Train Coalition to carry a tenth of their previous weight; I hope (unrealistically) that most media coverage will reflect this.
The quotes on "fifteen year plan" imply skepticism—why? Quick fixes are newsworthy and satisfying, but many good engineering decisions and plans regarding infrastructure deal with dates well beyond the next election, or even the lives of the people making them.
Also, Christopher has a great point.
"Fifteen year plan" is in quotes because, well... it's a direct quote.
Metrolinx has never committed to a specific deadline for electrification. They've only said it's in the plan, and that the plan looks fifteen years ahead.
Which isn't to say they won't do it in fifteen years, or that fifteen years would necessarily be too long to wait--just that it's not a guarantee.
What's the point of these environmental assessments if they're rigged to disregard the cleanest option?
It won't be cheaper to electrify down the road either.
You are right Svend, we should electrify the line from the get go. It will only get more expensive, and then in 15 years someone will kick the can further down the road. I predict diesel on that line for 30 to 50 years.
Why not cut to the chase and just do nothing -- no diesels, no electrics -- for 30-50 years? Because that is what will happen.
Clarification- the Clean Train Coalition supports transit, but electric train to protect the health of the 300,000 people adjacent to the trains.
There is nothing about this 'clean' diesel expansion that is environmentally friendly or economically wise. No country in the world is expanding diesel corridors, and for a reason- the toxicity of the ultrafine particulate matter in diesel is so bad for developing lungs in children, it impedes lung capacity permanently. Clean diesel has not been test on anyone's health yet, so its affects have not been scientifically studied.
There is never a reason to buy or build infrastructure twice- once for outmoded diesel, and another for electric trains. We, as taxpayers, are paying with our money to have private investors (SNC Lavalin) and a Crown Corporation (Metrolinx) poison our schoolyards, homes, seniors' residences and 300,000 people within 1km of this corridor in the west end of Toronto. And if you think you are immune, think again- the World Health Organization says this particulate matter travels 20 km in all directions. No one in the GTA is spared.
Canada will be the laughing stock of the world when we implement this corridor- China, India, the US and Great Britain are going electric for a reason- it is the best choice.
You say:
Nonsense. The Clean Train Coalition is in favor of transit on its own terms only.
You say:
Nonsense and scaremongering. Go read the Medical Officer of Health's letter. He says: But what are these increased health effects? Here is Metrolinx's report (and bear in mind that the MOH largely agrees with its conclusions). The report predicts: assuming 24-hour exposure to worst-case contaminant levels over a lifetime of 75 years, roughly a 1-in-1,000,000 increase in cancer risk; and local excess of NOx (this is the respiratory problem chemical, not particulates) beyond regulatory benchmarks no more than 1.5% of the time.
The following quote from the EPR is choice, where "Future No Build" assumes no additional rail infrastructure:
Those elevated numbers are largely from car traffic. Bear in mind that "Future No Build" is equivalent to the status quo while electrified infrastructure is being built. So if you're worried about NOx, how come you're screaming in the streets about trains, but not about cars? How come you're not irate about the Transit City Bus Plan, which will put many more diesel buses on our roads, which are far more polluting (per passenger) than trains?Generally, why are you obstructing transit expansion for no good reason?
Public transit is quiet, clean, accessible and works with the connectivity within the city and the greater region. It serves the people who pay for it first, as it aids value to their life by enabling them inexpensive transportation- not $30 for executive class to go to the airport. Public transit is not a caste system.
Public transit is not polluting, noisy, and inaccessible by running through neighbourhoods to serve very few stops, except 905 communities outside the greenbelt, at expense of the health and welfare of those who live in the 416. It does not generate funds for the private sector through taxpayers' money. Public transit has Memoranda of Understanding which are transparent, and its officials are accountable to the people it serves, unlike the officials at Metrolinx with their hidden contracts and objectives, and misinformation campaigns.
The first thing Rob Prichard of Metrolinx did was to take every public official off his Board of Directors, and replace them with those who work in private industries to advance their own profits, interests and companies.
This fact alone constitutes a breach of trust with the public. I am obstructing transit which serves the needs of real estate developers to develop the 905 district at the expense of those who live in the west part of the GTA, and I am asking for full disclosure on all contracts Metrolinx
has signed.
In addition, this is the 11th study of electrification with the Community Advisory Committee, and is not yet fully completed, yet the Minister of the Environment has made an announcement on the type of infrastructure to be used. Metrolinx does not have the right to buy diesel infrastructure before the electrification study has been compared and contrasted with diesel.
Just? I do not think so. And I refuse to pay for this transit which will not serve me, and devalues my quality of life substantially.
Clarification: Metrolinx has had 10 studies of electrification, which they were forced to reveal by request of citizens during deputations at City Hall, and this is the 11th, yet clean diesel has been OKed before this study is formally completed. Why waste the time of 16 engaged, committed volunteers to throw away this study for a technology which is considered internationally outdated? I repeat- there is no other country in the world which is expanding diesel corridors.
Apparently, Bombardier, a top flight, Canadian supplier of electric trains, who has just signed a major contract in China, is aghast at this GSSE/UPRL corridor expansion with diesel.
Also, the train to Pearson is $30 one way from Union Station, and does not stop in the neighbourhoods along the way. Most people find it much easier and cost efficient to take a taxi directly from their homes with their luggage rather than going to Union first.
This article is very biased, and very poorly researched.
As I discussed, expanded diesel train service has no major health impact, beyond existing air pollution in Toronto (to which you have no response). You're wrong that public transit is not, or should not be, polluting: I again point you to Toronto's massive network of diesel buses, and even electric trains require polluting sources of electricity (as the MOH acknowledges).
Innuendo against Rob Pritchard is irrelevant: he could just as well be Boss Tweed, and Metrolinx could be Enron, and yet those two facts would be independent of the need for expanded transit on the Georgetown corridor. Even so, it's remarkable that you would then bring up Bombardier's opinion -- of course, Bombardier as a private company, wants only what's best for Toronto -- and, oh look, they just happen to have the right trains to sell us!
Your argument against "the 905" is basically an argument to close GO Transit.
Of course you're aware that UPRL will form less than half the train traffic on the new link, so to focus on that aspect and characterize the whole project as "$30 executive class" is dishonest.
Most generally, it is disappointing to watch alleged community activists smear public transit -- public transit! -- as unhealthy, polluting, and broadly useless as an environmental strategy, all in the interest of winning this one argument over electrification. These smears, like the Clean Train Coalition's opposition to this project in general, are factually inaccurate and short-sighted, not to mention ridiculous on their face as examples of fear-mongering and propaganda.
That should have been in reply to Bicyclist.
Actually, Bombardier makes some fine electric trains, and SNC-Lavalin is capable of making electric trains as well. And hurrah! They are both Canadian companies, so we can support Canadian industry. And how did Calgary get the C Train, driven by a renewable source, the wind?
Too bad SNC-Lavalin is being asked to make heavy diesel trains for the GSSE/UPRL.
Rob Prichard has earned his reputation, and has to live with it, and its consequences are that he is not a trusted public figure, and his word is questioned now.
In all of your arguments, there is not a valid argument supporting the use of diesel trains over electric.
Way to spectacularly miss my point. If we can't trust the word of Rob Pritchard, because (according to you), his friends stand to personally benefit, why should I care what Bombardier has to say, when they also stand to personally benefit if electrical trains are chosen?
I don't have to argue in favor of diesel, because you haven't really argued in favor of electric: your case is built entirely on conjecture, fearmongering, and innuendo.
Let's all get on the same page here.
Until Toronto has fluid TTC Subway or TTC Light Rail service to Pearson Airport, the city has got blinders on if we want to classify ourselves under that oft-quoted one liner - A "World Class City"
Andrew, You quote Metrolinx like it was the word of God. They've changed their story a number of times, have refused to show us the actual data they collected to make their conclusions, have had their methodology and conclusions challenged by the Toronto Board of Health and the Toronto District School Board, have used lots of public money to carry on a media campaign to support their biased interpretation of Dr. McKeown's judgements on pollution right up to last week, have denied there are any studies of electrification to examine even though we now know there are 10 or more, and on it goes.
Here's a good example of Metrolinx's fudging. When they talk about cars being replaced by rail traffic they base their estimates on Go Trains being filled to capacity all day long, 1900 people a train all day long, when it's clear that this volume will never happen outside of rush hour no matter how many car-fueled communities are built outside of the City. As Steve Munro shows on his site, the actual number of people on the trains on average will be about 4-5 times less! Meaning 4-5 times more cars will be on the road as Metroinx is saying.
A similar deception is in their calculation of how polluted it is now and how polluted it will be after they build the new tracks. As a starting point they consider pollution as it may be if the current tracks had twice as many trains. Using this so-called no-build threshold as their starting point skews all their calculations.
If Metrolinx had an honest bone in their body, we might be able to really see what this project is all about.
Again I quote the Medical Officer of Health:
So I guess he's part of the conspiracy, too?No conspiracy was mentioned in my post. Apart from the first and last lines the rest is fact. You quote McKeown as Metrolinx did, and ignored what followed the quote you provide. Here's the rest:
"... I remain concerned about the air quality impacts and increased health risks predicted for the immediately adjacent communities as a result of the proposed diesel expansion.
In the “Information Clarification” Metrolinx has described potential air quality and health impact mitigation measures, including improvements to locomotive stock. While these mitigation measures would reduce emissions, it is not clear what level of reduction will be achieved in local ambient air concentrations of the respiratory irritants for which increased risk is predicted.
In its additional information Metrolinx also indicates that it is exploring alternatives to diesel train technology, including electrification. In my view, electrification is the option that most clearly addresses the air quality and health impacts predicted from the proposed project for populations adjacent to the line by ensuring that any emissions (due to electrical power generation) are regional in nature. Whether other measures proposed as part of a comprehensive mitigation strategy could reduce the predicted air quality and health impacts to an acceptable level remains to be demonstrated.
I know the rank injustice of more & better public transit blinds CTC proponents with righteous anger, but if you don't figure out the 'REPLY' feature Mr. Topping is going to wag his finger at you.
I'm not sure how to respond, because I think we agree on what the MOH said?
Metrolinx could be the most corrupt organization since the Gambino family, but it doesn't matter because everyone now agrees on the numbers. The debate should now be about the project, not about Metrolinx.
There isn't agreement about the numbers, Andrew. I don't know where you get that idea. Check out Steve Munro's discussion, Fun With Figures at Metrolinx, Parts 1 & 2 at www.stevemunro.ca.
Yes, I'm aware of what Steve Munro wrote. His argument is not internally consistent. Most importantly, here he agrees that the GO service will lead to a reduction in pollution, whereas both earlier and later he argues that there is no pollution savings, ever, from any kind of transit because of "backfill".
I could go on with the absurdities in Mr. Munro's argument (such as his strong support for increases in diesel bus services, which pollute far more than trains), but this discussion is already quite long. Furthermore, Mr. Munro has staked out a highly partisan position alongside the CTC, and regularly engages in ad-hominems against Metrolinx, so his arguments should not be viewed as independent.
The "backfill" argument -- i.e., that new auto traffic will always fill the demand left by trips diverted from autos to transit -- is particularly remarkable. If it's correct (and Mr. Munro provided us with no citations), then it's worthless to argue in favor of electrification on environmental grounds: the best environmental solution would be to build no new transit (electrical or otherwise) on the Georgetown line, or anywhere else for that matter. If it's wrong, then as I said in a previous comment, it's unbelievably irresponsible to propagate this smear against all transit in the interest of winning this one argument about electrification; it practically hands ammunition to City Council's transit-cutting right wing. Either way, Mr. Munro's discussion makes no sense.
There are errors in the study (GO locomotives are assumed to be 5000hp, not 3000 or 4000 as at present and UPRL sets are assumed to be 2000hp not 1100hp for two powered carriages).
The major problem is the need to have no-change heavy rail right into the airport. An Airtrain-JFK style light rail should carry people from either Malton GO or a station at Woodbine, with "UPRL" traffic being carried by more frequent GO trains and passengers from 905 receiving equality of service to those from Union by means for a common GO-Airport transfer. Business passengers could be accommodated by having some cars with longer seat pitch and higher fares. Meanwhile Lakeshore should be the first electric line because that's where the freakin' train maintenance yard is!