Ever since Ontario’s Minister of the Environment, John Gerretsen, announced that the Georgetown South expansion of GO services, plus the link to Pearson Airport, would be allowed to proceed subject to a number of conditions, there has been much spin in the press by both side of the argument.
My position is quite clear in two previous posts: the numbers used by Metrolinx to substantiate their claims about comparative pollution of auto and train travel are seriously flawed to the point that claims made by Metrolinx and the govenment are simply not true.
One additional problem came to light earlier today.
On its website, Metrolinx characterizes the decision as follows:
Trains operated by GO Transit on the Georgetown rail corridor and the Union Pearson Rail Link service must use Tier 4 state of the art engines when the service expansion begins or as soon as the technology is commercially available.
However, the order actually reads:
2. All trains utilized for GO Transit that travel to, from or through Georgetown along the Georgetown South Corridor shall be Tier 4 compliant when service begins or when Tier 4 compliant technology becomes commercially available.
3. All trains utilized for the Union-Pearson Rail Link in the Georgetown South Corridor shall be Tier 4 compliant when service begins or when Tier 4 compliant technology becomes commercially available.
The wording of item 2 above is curious. Only trains that “to, from or through Georgetown” are subject to the order. This omits the following services from the scope of the order:
- Proposed frequent short-turn service to Brampton,
- Trains to Milton which use the corridor south of West Toronto diamond,
- Trains to Barrie which use the corridor south of Dundas Street, and run parallel to it for some distance to the north,
- Trains to Bolton, a proposed new peak period GO line, which uses the corridor to the point where it turns west over the Humber River.
However, Metrolinx has no compunctions about including these trains in its calculations of diverted trips, saved emissions and, of course, the benefits of Tier 4 diesel technology.
Either the order is oddly and badly drafted, or there is a deliberate attempt to limit its scope while giving the impression that all new trains will have the latest in pollution controls. The former would be mere incompetence. The latter casts both Metrolinx and the Government’s position in a much darker light.
The Minister of the Environment owes everyone a clear statement regarding the intent of his order. If it applies to all trains that will operate on the rail corridor beginning roughly at the Strachan Avenue grade crossing and ending at Georgetown, then say so. If not, then explain why the frequent services planned for the heavy Milton (future Cambridge) and Barrie routes will operate with Tier 2 diesels.
Steve Munro 
The key term in the Minister’s ruling is “Tier 4 compliant” and “when commercially available.” That’s the big window for electrification, and that Metrolinx would potentially be in violation of the Minister’s order to not be using electrification when expanded service begins if Tier 4 engines cannot be produced by the target start date of service.
Further to the wording, I’m sure the operations department would go ballistic if an order from whatever higher authority was delivered telling them that x trains can go to Georgetown while y trains can go to Brampton [Mount Pleasant?] only. What’s interesting though is that the Minister may inadvertently have set a requirement for electrification to go all the way to Kitchener… now that would really be incompetent.
LikeLike
This isn’t the only legislation that this Minister has drafted that was drafted poorly. The Residential Tenancies Act of 2006 was also drafted by Minister John Gerretsen and it too was poorly drafted and is ambiguous in sections. In fact one section that hasn’t been proclaimed yet has led to tenants being illegally forced to pay hydro costs by landlords because the sections were placed in the legislation without regard to the consequences. Some landlords were quick to unofficially adopt the unproclaimed sections that led to tenants suffering mental anguish and financial losses.
So if the Minister was poorly advised, then this is the second ministry he’s been “poorly advised” in.
Steve: Needless to say, I am being ironic. Some badly advised ministers are forced to consider alternate careers, but I don’t think this project will have quite the same effect as other recent scandals. The saddest part of this is that GO/Metrolinx brought it all on themselves by being so uncooperative and dismissive.
LikeLike
The most important data -from a public and environmental heath perspective -is how cumulative emissions will compare from today’s service levels versus expanded service levels using both Tier 4 diesels and existing technology. The legislation should have been worded so that expanded passenger service would not spike emissions beyond those of current passenger service, calculated at certain reference points along the corridor (Strachan, Dundas, West Toronto Diamond, Humber River).
No doubt, electrification will have a place in GO’s future, even though current plans remain vague. Although the data is skewed and loopholes await, what we have here is a commitment to phase in Tier 4 diesel technology. If GO acheives an absolute reduction of emissions despite planned service expansions, then it’s a step in the right direction in terms of environmental and human health.
Steve: I agree with the principle of what you write. However, GO has gone out of its way to misrepresent the effects in the corridor. One good example is that the service level they use to calculate the “base case” for pollution is actually heavier than what operates today. Therefore, they are overstating the emissions from existing trains. If the true delta is bigger, they have to work harder for future services to match existing levels. The cumulative effect of GO’s actions implies that they will take every opportunity to make their case look good, and to undermine and denigrate the position taken by the community.
LikeLike
Steve, you sound like your overblowing this. The Bolton route does not even exist – and even if it did, it would be during peak periods when we are talking about taking 1,400 to 1,900 cars off the road for every train running on the route. Same goes currently for the Barrie and Georgetown routes during peak periods. Their environment benefits exist (as a public transit advocate, I do not have to explain this to you.)
As for the service during the day along the Georgetown Line, the benefit may not be the same, but remember the train is only in an area for a short period of time. Some areas may expreience a bit more pollution – others would see little real difference because of where the line is (sorry Steve, but I have spent a lot of time in Weston area on many occasions over the years, and I can tell you that any pollution from more trains will not make a big difference to the air quality in the area. There is already a ton of pollution from cars and truicks idling in the area which is far worse for air quality and the environment then more trains.)
I do totally agree with an electric train – especially for the Pearson link – but public transit is more environmentally friendly then individuals driving.
Steve: This assessment and order were conducted in the context of GO/Metrolinx stated plans to operate frequent all-day service to Barrie, Milton and Georgetown. The government is happy to count all the passengers these services might carry as part of their diversion of drivers to transit, but they can’t then turn around and ignore the effect of the large increase in trains in the corridor. As I have written already many times, the pollution due to diverted car trips is spread over the west side of the GTA. The pollution due to the trains is concentrated along the routes. Also, the road capacity freed up by putting people on trains will be immediately used up by latent demand and population growth. The amount of pollution along the highways will not change one iota until we reach the point where transit has such a large market share, the 401 moves freely at all times of the day.
Also, this issue is not just in Weston, but also in Parkdale which has to put up with not just the airport, Georgetown and (peak period) Bolton trains, but also frequent service to Milton/Cambridge and Barrie.
LikeLike
I think GO short-turning trains before Georgetown to skirt the order would not fall within the intent of the order. If GO does however pulls a stunt, then they are just hurting the people they answer to (the taxpayers), and the customers they serve.
I can’t believe we still live in the stone-age when it comes to commuter rail.
Steve: It’s the odd wording of the order that bothers me — why go to the trouble of explicitly saying all trains in the corridor, but only those that go through one station? Either the Minister has been hoodwinked, or the Government is trying to pull a fast one. As things are, it would be like imposing pollution controls only on all of the green cars on the 401.
LikeLike
I noticed this the other day but presumed Bolton and Barrie would likely be covered off by EAs relating to the inception and expansion respectively of those services.
Steve: Neither of these requires an EA to simply run trains, or more trains, over existing tracks.
LikeLike
Actually, Bolton has an EA scheduled following the feasibility study ending soon (it may be done already). Milton will also require an EA as it will require quadtracking between Kipling and wherever all-day service is supposed to terminate (Cooksville minimum, as that’s where Express Rail is terminating in the RTP). I’d say Kipling to West Toronto should be included, but most of that stretch is Lambton Yard, so it isn’t an issue. Both CP and GO require two tracks each dedicated to them for their respective services in an expanded all-day Milton every 15 minutes model.
Steve: The distinction is whether something new has to be built. Running more trains on track you already have does not require an EA.
LikeLike
Steve wrote:
“The pollution due to the trains is concentrated along the routes. Also, the road capacity freed up by putting people on trains will be immediately used up by latent demand and population growth. The amount of pollution along the highways will not change one iota until we reach the point where transit has such a large market share, the 401 moves freely at all times of the day.”
You are partly understanding what I am saying – pollution is NOT stagnant. It will be spread over an area depending in part on wind conditions. If there is no wind, it may stay in one area for ahwile – but normally this just enough of a breeze to make it move.
My point has always been, and will be, that public transit is far better for air pollution and the environment then car driving. That means people in Weston, Parkdale, and downtown may have to put up with some more pollution (but as someone who has a view of downtown), Toronto has a lot of pollution now. We need to make changes to reduce pollution – and public transit does that.
Yes an electric locomotive is better then a diesel locomotive, but overall a public train (i.e. GO and the Pearson link) does reduce air pollution – so instead of saying “It MUST be electric from day one” it should be “provide a level of service that will relieve air pollution in the long run.”
Steve: This is the last tit-for-tat in this sequence I will reply to. Parkdale is getting vastly more trains than they have now, and only some of them are guaranteed to have low emission propulsion. There will be just as much pollution in the 401 and 427 corridors after these services start operating as there is today due to population and demand growth, especially for trips that are not well-served by the GO network. The GO expansions enable suburban population growth to occur by providing more transportation capacity. They do not reduce pollution. The pollution per trip goes down because of transit, but the number of trips goes up.
This is an important distinction which is ignored in much of GO’s puffery. Moreover, as another comment observed, many of the trips now on GO, and certainly many in the future, are trips that would never have been made by auto in the first place. The presence of good GO rail services encourages people to live where they can use it, and the car they might otherwise have bought for commuting, indeed their choice of where to work, will be influenced by the availability of rail service.
When GO was not running, how many people were desperately looking for car pooling opportunities because they didn’t have a spare car they could drive into downtown, even presuming they could park it once it got here. These are people whose trips would not have been in autos, who adjusted their lifestyle and travel to the presence of commuter rail.
LikeLike
But then are we saying that we trust the management capabilities of Metrolinx enough to have two different fleets of trains for one single route? Highly unlikely, as with the TTC, that they would be able to get a specific type of vehicle in service for each run of each route.
Steve: In the best tradition of environmental monitoring, the correct equipment would be on the Georgetown trains at least some of the tme, and so “on average” they would meet the criterion.
LikeLike
I would love to see GO Transit’s raw data detailing ridership. It would be interesting to see just how many GO trains are currently running as positive polluters. At some point, there is a ridership level when GO trains are polluting more than the vehicles they are supposed to be taking off the road. When they run at capacity they are definitely negative polluters, in that they take more vehicles off of the road than the pollution the trains add to the local environment.
The real question is how many vehicles are actually taken off of the road? Some people who take the GO train don’t even own vehicles, so GO isn’t taking those people’s cars off of the road, but they get counted along with all the other commuters on the train.
Can GO be even close with ridership numbers for places like Bolton and Bradford? I find it hard to believe that those towns will provide enough commuters for all the trains that will be aimed at their communities.
Steve: As GO services become frequent, all day, bidirectional carriers, they will enable more and more people to live in the 905 without using a car to commute. In that sense, they “take a car off the road”, but the car is one that was never purchased, or frequently out of the garage, in the first place.
Rather than producing credible numbers, GO/Metrolinx prefer to fudge things to produce a wildly optimistic forecast. Green is good, but if we oversell it, the next time the Visigoths, I mean the Tories, come to power, watch all that “green” stuff get swept away that is founded on untenable claims.
LikeLike
I didn’t disagree with that. I’m saying that Milton will definitely require an EA since CP will demand the number of tracks be doubled through Mississauga to accommodate all-day bi-directional frequent GO service. Something new has to be built for Milton.
Bolton will require an EA as well since new stations (no doubt with ample parking in most cases) and a new layover yard have to be built.
Steve: I was just clarifying this for the benefit of other readers.
LikeLike
Was there an ea required to widen the lakeshore corridor?
Steve: Yes, because the corridor was being modified. Having widened it, no EA is required to alter the level of service.
LikeLike
I am looking for a study to support your surprising claim that transit has no effect on air pollution. Google turned up some interesting results: your claim is supported most notably by the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. It is worth pointing out that the Cato Institute is known to promote global warming skeptics, and that the staunchly conservative Heritage Foundation had close links to the administration of George W. Bush.
Of course, neither of these facts make their transit arguments wrong, but it’s also worth pointing out that I can find no pro-transit or pro-environment (or even impartial) source to support your claim — but plenty who take the opposite view, notably the Sierra Club. So where are you getting your numbers?
Steve: I did not say that transit would not reduce air pollution. What I said was that in the context of the GTA, there is very large planned population growth during the same period that we will be making massive investments in transit. Indeed, that growth is one of the primary incentives for the spending because there isn’t any more room in the road network to handle more trips in already congested corridors.
The transit service will provide additional capacity in the network and at lower pollution per trip, at least for peak operations, but the road network will remain heavily used and therefore will continue to generate the same pollution as it does today. While this may sound like a semantic exercise, it’s important to make the distinction. If we don’t improve transit, the population will still grow, up to a point, but the GTA will strangle in congestion.
Indeed, in a worst case scenario, the inability of people to move between various locations may affect development potential. However, developers (and their friends on various Councils) never want to be told that “their project” is the one that will bring unacceptable congestion. This is always something that will happen in the future, but not now. The result is that the area is overbuilt (and probably has more unbuilt, but approved projects in the pipeline) before the problem is apparent. Decades of suburban construction have already shown us this to some degree.
Even with all of the transit spending, the modal split overall will still be low. Although we may capture a very large chunk of the riders bound for major nodes such as Bay and Front, many more trips are destined all over the GTA and they will continue to be by car. That part of the overall demand will rise and will backfill any roadspace available to it.
The grand total of trips (transit and auto) will go up. To the degree that we serve these by transit, the pollution per trip should, on average, go down although if auto trips grow in length due to sprawl, this may not be the case. In effect, the losses to longer auto trips may overwhelm gains from increased transit riding.
Transit services operate a great deal of mileage with underused capacity (counter-peak and off-peak) where the pollution per rider is higher than found in peak-only services. Even peak-only services can have a high overhead of dead mileage if trains must run to and from yards after a single one-way revenue trip. These operations count toward total pollution, but may be overlooked in calculations.
The equivalent would be if someone drove to work, and then a chauffeur drove their car home (or to some storage lot remote from work), then back to the work location for the afternoon commute. The commuter only makes one trip in and one trip out, but the car does a lot more.
For transit to be attractive, off-peak service must be good. People who need to make an appointment with one of a few trains will often find a reason to drive — their schedule does not necessarily match the one offered by GO. That off-peak service will generate more pollution per trip if the same 12-car diesel-hauled train carries only a few hundred riders rather than a full peak period load of 1,900.
Having said that, cars require something that trains don’t, at least not on the same scale — parking. The amount of land and/or size of parking structures needed to hold cars during the work day has an economic cost in wasted land as well as the capital and operating cost of the parking itself. This isn’t “pollution” in the sense of emissions, but it is a cost of car-oriented commuting. If we concentrate only on one variable, emissions, we miss the other issues related to car ownership including the economic burden on multi-car families, the wasted land both at the home and work ends of trips, and the cost of time related to road congestion.
(As a side note to all of this, there are specific examples in the estimates of emissions per passenger that were provided by GO/Metrolinx as background to their environmental claims. These contain serious errors as I have pointed out, but it’s worth noting that in some cases even the official numbers show higher emissions for the transit option. The problem is that the underlying assumptions and methodology are incorrect. It’s strange that a government agency should trot out such flawed information in support of their proposal. This issue is separate from the debate about redirected trips and backfilling traffic.)
Sorry for such a long answer, but I felt that any reference to the Cato Institute and their ilk deserved a detailed reply.
LikeLike
One of the difficulties, in all this, is that the average locomotive has a 25 year life span, so the decisions made today should take a few things to light:
1) Fuel prices tend to rise, and sometimes prices change rapidly over a short period of time. It’s an unknown where railway diesel fuel prices will be during the life of locomotives built today. Will we even be able to get diesel fuel by the time these locomotives are ready to be retired?
2) Do we have a guarantee that future legislatures will not pass legislation limiting railway pollution, during the life of the equipment. For example a federal law that is passed in 15 years to require all locomotives to pass then new Tier 5 requirements.
3) Will a locomotive purchased today be upgradeable to Tier 4, for a reasonable cost, when the technology comes out? If not, you may be stuck with a lot of locomotives you can’t use and you can’t sell either.
4) Will future construction techniques make it cheaper to electrify then it is today?
5) If they decide to electrify 10 years from now, will they be able to maintain the line open during construction.
LikeLike
@wogster – first, if diesels are outlawed or fuel becomes unobtainable, the problems of GO will be minor compared to freight rail.
Second, as GO has shown by recently disposing of several F59s, 25 years does not mean 25 years in GO ownership. Expansion of diesel-haul commuting in places like Dallas, Montreal (Eastern Townships), Vancouver and Minneapolis will find homes for MP40s in a post-diesel GO.
Thirdly, there are plenty of non-Tier 0 locomotives remaining on Canadian railroads. Enforcing Tier 0 alone would mean the scrapping or retrofitting of about 1,500 locomotives excluding switches, steam locos and RDC/DMUs as of 2007. We need have no fears of Tier 4+ being implemented on existing locomotives any time soon at that rate of progress. After all, as this document on the Transport Canada site shows, emissions reduction on the railroads is founded on *voluntary* agreements.
LikeLike
Steve said “This is the last tit-for-tat in this sequence I will reply to”
I’m also going to make a final statement on this whole entire issue:
Steve, you disappoint me. I always thought that you were pro-transit at heart, but that is just plain not true. You are a NIMBY. Know what? People live in places, and work in other places. That’s a fact of life. And in order to get from Place A to place C, you have to travel though place B. What is “Place B”? Weston, Parkdale, etc. If you ever plan to increase transit connections from Place A to place C, you are going to HAVE to increase transit though place B. You completely ignore this fact, and in stead, ALWAYS, without fail, take the side of people in place B. This is NIMBY, specifically, transportation NIMBY.
I for one am done commenting on this issue, because no matter what happens or how it happens, all I hear is “but what about the people who live in place B”. This is not pragmatic logical thinking to help the masses, this is idealogical focusing on a NIMBY issue.
I will still read your blog and comment on other issues, but I am done commenting on this issue. I think where I stand is clear enough by now.
Thank you
LikeLike
You know what the Georgetown expansion is a NIMBY issue. I for one do not want GO Transit and SNC-Lavalin to run over 300 diesel spewing trains through Weston. I do not want my family or neighbours to die from cancer or leukemia. I do not want the children in my neighbouthood to develop asthma or breathing problems.
The thing is, if this expansion becomes one that is powered by electric trains all the NIMBY issues disappear.
This isn’t NIMBYism against public transit, its NIMBYism against BAD public transit and communities being poisoned in the name of bad public transit.
LikeLike
WAKE UP ONTARIO EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING ELECTRIC TRANINS WHY CANT WE!! This has nothing to do with NIMBYism its about making GOOD PLANNING CHOICES. So far the govt has make some bad choices……
LikeLike
You’re clearly missing the broader issue. Transportation has to be designed in a manner that can a) co-exist with the existing landscape, urban or otherwise, and b) in Toronto in particular, transportation corridors need to be able to attract growth and concentrate future growth along transit corridors in order for the city to grow in a sustainable and transit-oriented way.
B) is what makes this as far from a NIMBY issue as it gets. This project will clearly deter growth along the corridor. Nobody will want to live near such noise and poor air quality. Deterring growth along a transit corridor is the worst thing we can do, and yet this is exactly what Metrolinx and the Province are doing with this project even if they don’t realize it. This is a clear and present threat to the sustainability of growth in the west end.
To brush that off as NIMBYism is naive.
LikeLike
Hey I was just sayin’, we don’t know what the future of rail will bring, diesel is 20th century technology, just as coal and steam were 19th century technology. The future of rail is electric, it would be cheaper and easier to electrify the line today, get electric trains to run on it, then it will be to buy diesel technology today, and electrify it tomorrow when it will be considerably more expensive, and more difficult to do.
LikeLike
Kevin Milburn seems to be going completely overboard. Die from cancer or leukemia? Come on, let’s get real here. Reports are that there ARE NO measurable cancer increases. Though any simple toxicological study will show you that an extra cup of coffee a day has a cancer risk.
You should be more worried by all that chloride and flouride they put in your drinking water, the chemicals they coat the inside of tin cans with, the anitbiotics in the milk and meat!
You’d think that they were proposing to run smoke-belching steam engines!
I’m glad to hear those opposed though, finally admit that they are Nimbys!
Steve: No, they’re not NIMBYs, and their concerns involve a lot more than carcinogens. If you want to fight the fluoridation battle all over again (I was quite young when that happened), go right ahead, but not on this blog.
LikeLike
“All trains utilized for GO Transit…” “Trains operated by GO Transit”
What if it’s not GO that end up running the trains?
Steve: The exemption is for Via and the freight railroads, but your point is well taken. That’s bad drafting.
LikeLike
I think I’m going to petition for a garbage incinerator next to Nick B’s house. It would be for the greater good after all to deal with Toronto’s trash locally.
What are we? Communist China? Oh but wait, China just embarassed the US at the United Nations Climate Change Summit by revealing strong measures and policy shifts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in that country. And let’s not forget they currently have 27,500 km of electrified railway lines with over 6000 km of that being 200 km/h-or-better high speed rail, and they’re not stopping there.
You see, Nick, a few NIMBYs may slightly slow our growth as a city and region, but it’s callous attitudes and statements like yours that slow our growth as a society. Strip away everything we’ve developed as a species that makes us different from the animals we look down on and all we’re really left with is our health and wellbeing. With all we now know it stuns me that anyone would want to take that away. You will never help “the masses” if you truly believe you can sacrifice an unwilling portion for everyone else’s benefit. Ask yourself, are you personally prepared to ‘take one for the team’?
P.S. Given our current state of scientific evolution this diesel rail proposal seems as ridiculous as the development of a robot powered by fossil fuel. Just try to imagine the scene as that engineering team is laughed right out of existence!
LikeLike
“The thing is, if this expansion becomes one that is powered by electric trains all the NIMBY issues disappear.”
Just to note I support electrification but seriously, lol @ that comment. I don’t believe that for a second. There’ll always be something that the NIMBY’s have to complain about. Just wait until the construction phase rolls around, we’ll be hearing lots from you then I bet.
Don’t get me wrong, Its completely within your their right and yours to complain but please don’t insult our collective intelligence by saying you’ll be placated by electrification, because you won’t be.
Steve: The question is not whether “the NIMBYs” have something to complain about, but whether what they have to say is worth listening to. Some of the folks in the various pro-electric coalitions are a lot more shrill and intemperate as others, just as those who “comment” from the other side of the argument vary in their subtlety, appropriateness and intelligence.
This thread is descending into a slanging match, and it does no good to either side in the argument.
LikeLike
Kevin Milburn says:
[i]You know what the Georgetown expansion is a NIMBY issue. I for one do not want GO Transit and SNC-Lavalin to run over 300 diesel spewing trains through Weston. I do not want my family or neighbours to die from cancer or leukemia. I do not want the children in my neighbouthood to develop asthma or breathing problems.[/i]
Then perhaps you should encase your family and neighbours in a little bubble, free from working about walking across the street where they could get hit by a car and breathing poison fumes from not only the cars but from all of the plastic used in our lives. Not only that, you’ll have to keep them from drinking water, as who knows what years of arsenic, fluoride and chlorine intake will do. Pollution from the trains should be the least of your worries.
Kevin Milburn says:
[i]The thing is, if this expansion becomes one that is powered by electric trains all the NIMBY issues disappear.
This isn’t NIMBYism against public transit, its NIMBYism against BAD public transit and communities being poisoned in the name of bad public transit.[/i]
Bullshit. Lots of the people along the line will find something new to complain about – wires lowering their property values, effects of electromagnetic radiation on their little ones, delays from more freight trains that will inevitably happen as the economy rebounds, etc.
That said, there’s no doubt that this whole project has been done badly from the outset.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
LikeLike
“Steve: As I have written already many times, the pollution due to diverted car trips is spread over the west side of the GTA. The pollution due to the trains is concentrated along the routes. Also, the road capacity freed up by putting people on trains will be immediately used up by latent demand and population growth. The amount of pollution along the highways will not change one iota until we reach the point where transit has such”
Steve, this is a horrible straw man argument. Latent demand can be applied to virtually any transit project, any commuters taken out of their cars and placed into a public transit vehicle will simply be replaced by another car due to latent demand. Transit city, buses, subways, all these projects will have ZERO effect on pollution and traffic levels since, as you argued, latent demand will simply fill in the freed up capacity. So lets stop them all and not build any more transit.
If GO trains should be required to be a net negative polluters (a poor requirement at best, per your latent demand argument) then I think TTC buses should also be held to the same standard. All those empty buses should be taken off the road!
Steve: You really have missed my point. The government chooses to advocate for this project based on the displaced pollution scheme. I think this is a complete fantasy, but won’t belabour what I have already written. As I have said many times before, transit needs to be present and convenient all of the time to be attractive. During peak hours it will be full, while at other times less so. Rather like a highway.
The environmental benefits are the reduction in space required to provide roads and parking lots, as well as the encouragment of more dense forms of development that are transit-friendly. From an economic point of view, the cost of travel is lower because people don’t need a personal car for every family member. Land that would otherwise be used for storing cars can be developed. You cannot make the calculation on one variable. My objection is that the government is hanging its hat on that one variable, displaced trips and their pollution, when the situation is much more complex.
LikeLike
Today’s Globe and Mail, front section, contains a small article that confirms that Milton, Barrie and Bolton trains will not be Tier 4 compliant, and that indeed, only Georgetown trains (likely the entire route) and Airport trains will have to be, said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of the Environment. What a shame.
Steve: So amazing that GO/Metrolinx could get away with counting all of their trains as part of the Tier-4 based emission reductions when, in fact, only part of the service on that corridor is subject to the order. I don’t mind people spinning things to look good for their point of view, but there’s a huge gap between “spin” and “lie”.
The calculations for emissions south of West Toronto must now be redone to reflect what will actually run in that corridor.
LikeLike
“NIMBYism” is thrown around too easily by people who do not live in the area affected. Especially in this case where the people affected WANT the service to be what it should be: Electrified, with stops serving their neighbourhood. Not just for far flung 905’ers to have a quick ride downtown.
LikeLike
Can I ask a question here? Is there anybody – anybody – commenting on this thread who would NOT like to see electric trains in Toronto? If you do, please say so. I doubt there will be many.
In my opinion, this debate is almost wholly about how electrification is done and how decisions are made. On one hand, you have Metrolinx/GO who are displaying amateurish command of planning (contradictory documents, inane secrecy demands) and executing (West Toronto) billion dollar projects. On the other, a single vocal politically slanted lobby group wants to gerrymander their part of a multi-billion multi-decade project to the head of the queue, while the busiest poison train lines on the network wait even longer.
Steve: There’s more than one group under the Clean Train Coalition umbrella, and multiple voices speaking with varying degrees of effectiveness. Much of the attention is focussed on Weston as that area was the first to raise issues with planning for the corridor expansion. However, once The Big Move hit the streets, it became evident that the pollution problems would be far worse south of West Toronto where other lines, just as heavy in future plans as the “Georgetown” line, would merge into the corridor. This is not just a Weston issue.
LikeLike
We need a new word for people who call people NIMBY’s but don’t take the time to understand the issue. People who lack of understanding in fact enable rushed and bad planning to happen.
The MOH revised report has severe health concerns. Period. Go look it up.
The data being promoted by MX is flawed and in some cases not true. Its been documented here and elsewhere over and over. Go look it up.
MX has never been honest about electrification. Read the reports.
What do you call somebody who just believes what the government says?
People along the corridor have been researching this expansion for years and probably know more about it than MX does in some cases. Bad planning is bad planning and those that dig deeper like the media is starting to do are rewarded with an informed opinion.
LikeLike
I was under the impression that NIMBY stood for “not in my back yard”.
If so, the uninformed ranters calling Steve a NIMBY are sadly off track.
The proposed expansion is nowhere near Steve’s back yard. They’ll need to think up a new nasty pejorative for someone who cares about the welfare of people in other locations.
LikeLike
Sure I’d like to see electric trains in Toronto. I also live next to the Kingston sub, and have Lakeshore East, Stouffville, and VIA trains going past. More trains currently than going through Weston; and likely more in the future as Stouffville and Lakeshore East are increasing service.
I’m just furious however why the residents of Weston think that they deserve electricification before anyone else. And I’m also furious that all evidence suggests that they are simply using electrification as a weapon to try and sink a project they don’t want.
Steve: The evidence suggests nothing of the kind.
That this was about a lot more than just electrification and trying to improve transit service became clear when such a huge issue was made about John Street being closed to vehicular traffic, and being replaced by a pedestrian crossing – even though great expense was being done turn both King Street and Church Street in to vehicular crossings. This means that the complaints weren’t about anything but a car having to drive about 170 metres down Rosemount from John Street to King Street. The objections to stopping vehicular traffic on John Street were absolutely shameful, and exposed the opponents of this project.
Steve: If you had been paying attention, you would know that there is strong support for electrification from the area south of West Toronto diamond in Parkdale where the total number of trains vastly exceeds anything you will ever see on Lake Shore.
This argument between GO and people along the corridor has been going on for a long time, but the sheer number of trains only really became evident when The Big Move came out last year.
This is not just a Weston issue.
LikeLike
Why are people saying the people of Weston want to sink this project? Wasn’t one of their campaign demands about ADDING a station to the Weston area? If you’re trying to destroy a project, adding a station to your neighborhood is a pretty funny way of doing it.
LikeLike
Hello Steve,
Whatever happened to the prototype hybrid locomotives that GM was going to build? They would of had a 500 horse power electric motor and a 2500 horse power bio diesel motor? Have you ever heard about it? Tt too was supposed to have NIMH batteries … This technology is not even on the horizon … Anyway, I don’t live in Weston but I agree with their concerns 100% … we must put it in stone that we will electrify Lakeshore and Weston. The sooner, the better…
Steve: This is news to me. “Diesel” locomotives are already “hybrids” in the sense that the diesel runs a generator producing electricity that actually powers the train, but there is no regeneration or storage capacity. The supposed benefit of hybrid buses is that in stop-and-go traffic, they can recycle energy from the braking cycle. However, we already know from TTC experience that this is less successful on routes where traffic tends to be free-flowing most of the time. The same argument would apply to railway locomotives for almost all applications other than yard switchers. The additional weight and complexity would likely never be recovered in energy savings.
On the streetcar and subway systems, which are electrified, cars push power back into the supply system when they brake. This power is generally consumed somewhere else nearby because there is usually another car/train in the same power supply section that can absorb the power.
LikeLike
I’m going to be a bit nit-picky about two things Steve said: ‘“Diesel” locomotives are already “hybrids” in the sense that the diesel runs a generator producing electricity that actually powers the train’
That is a bit of a stretch that would be comparable to everyone claiming they drive a hybrid because there is an alternator that keeps their battery charged. “Diesel electric” locomotives use electricity as a transmission system to get power from the spinning internal combustion engine to the spinning wheels, as opposed to using an hydraulic transmission or a geared transmission to accomplish the same thing.
Steve: Sorry, but the analogy I use is that the motor that turns the wheels of a “diesel” engine is electric, and that electricity comes from the diesel generator. The diesel does not directly drive the engine. In a hybrid car or bus, the primary propulsion is an electric motor powered from an onboard generator as well as from a battery storage system. In a conventional auto (alternator, battery and all), the wheels are driven directly by the gasoline or diesel engine with no intermediate conversion to electricity. The alternator is only providing what might be called “hotel” power for the truly electrical subsystems of an auto.
The other thing is, ‘The supposed benefit of hybrid buses is that in stop-and-go traffic, they can recycle energy from the braking cycle.’
In the case of city buses, this benefit becomes more predominant than with other types of buses. However, the real benefit of hybrid technology is the ability to operate an internal combustion engine in its most efficient operating range. Internal combustion engines have efficiencies that vary drastically over differing load conditions. In an hybrid system, the engine is operated either at its optimal efficience or not at all. When the engine produces ‘extra’ energy, it is stored (in batteries) and when the engine is not producing enough energy for the current conditions, it comes from the storage system.
Steve: The size of the batteries needed for a 5000hp engine would be very large, and a big problem with batteries generally is that you can only draw power from them up to a certain rate. The draw needed to start a train from a standing stop is substantial. You can’t just charge up the batteries to some immense level in the long gap between commuter rail stops, and then pull all that power in a short term to pull away from that stop. Meanwhile, you have to drag the batteries (and associated electronics) around as an extra dead weight.
LikeLike
re: the discussion above – developments along those lines have focused on ultracapacitors rather than batteries but to date have only reached the level of buses and LRVs not massive locomotives.
Bombardier’s MITRAC technology (PDF) is based on these materials.
Electric storage in a diesel platform might be better focused on allowing locomotives to be shut down rather than idling, at least outside winter, and providing partial or total Head End Power topped up from the prime mover.
LikeLike
One comment on Hybrid buses, the Orions that the TTC uses (vehicle numbers 1000-1899) , are driven by electric motors, the diesel drives a generator, the generator feeds the batteries, the batteries feed the electric drive motors.
LikeLike
I never stated or implied that a hybrid system had to provide ALL the power all the time from the battery storage system.
An internal combustion engine capable of providing 5000 hp might operate at its highest efficiency at some other value, let us say 4300 hp @ 800 rpm. When starting from a stop, a full 5000 hp might be needed, and on a hybrid system, the engine only has to operate at its optimal point and the remaining 700 hp of power would come from the batteries. Once up to speed, the tractive force needed might only be 3000 hp, but the engine would continue to operate with its most efficient output of 4300 hp, providing enough energy to recharge the batteries.
Though there are diesel hybrid locomotives, these tend to be limited to switching purposes where the operational cycle involves a fair amount of idling and start and stop operation. This gives the benefit that Mark Dowling mentioned of being able to shut down th prime mover during much of the idling. As Steve mentioned, the added dead weight of the batteries is an issue for a road locomotive, but a benefit for a switching locomotive.
The other thing that makes diesel hybrid technology of little benefit for road locomotives is that, to some extent, Steve’s analogy holds up because locomotives operate their prime mover at a more or less constant RPM, even though the horsepower output does vary. A hybrid system attempts to operate the prime mover at a constant RPM and output to maximize efficiency. Since a “regular” diesel electric locomotive is roughly half way there already, the added benefit from hybrid of being able to keep output constant is eaten up by having to drag the batteries around.
Steve: I think we are all saying more or less the same thing here. Any system involving energy storage, be it batteries, rubber bands or hot air, only works if the added complexity, weight and maintenance are offset by frequent opportunities to reclaim the stored energy. This is most applicable to start-stop environments such as busy urban traffic for buses, or switching for railways.
LikeLike
Steve wrote, “I think we are all saying more or less the same thing here.”
True, and to bring it full circle back to the electrification issue: Electric propulsion from power generated at a generating station is the ultimate “controlled environment” where the source of energy can be turned into electricity and delivered to the train in the most efficient way.
To do that any other way, be it by a hybrid drive train or by hydrogen, will add all sorts of inefficiencies that just don’t make it worth the cost and effort (and likely make it worse).
LikeLike
Wogster says:
October 15, 2009 at 9:55 pm
One comment on Hybrid buses, the Orions that the TTC uses (vehicle numbers 1000-1899) , are driven by electric motors, the diesel drives a generator, the generator feeds the batteries, the batteries feed the electric drive motors.
That’s technically incorrect. The TTC’s hybrid buses use an alternator connected to the diesel motor, which outputs AC power. This AC power is then converted to DC power for the control system, and then converted again to AC power for the traction motor. The batteries are DC, and are not fed by the diesel motor at all – they are only recharged during braking.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Steve: Thanks for the clarification. As mentioned earlier in the thread, there’s a lot of extra technology to carry around in the name of energy conservation, and it’s only effective for a duty cycle that maximizes use of the energy storage system.
LikeLike