In the Environmental Assessment as performed by Metrolinx, 'receptors', which are residences and families, along the corridor are viewed as less important than 'sensitive receptors', which are schools, daycare centers, and nursing homes. A family residence can also house young children and the elderly, so should be considered a 'sensitive receptor' as well, but this is an implicit admission that the projections of the toxicity of the environmental pollution will be very high as emitted by this diesel train corridor. The density of the population is 300 000 in 300 metres from the edge of this corridor, including a minimum of 30 000 school children, and 76 schools, daycare centers, nursing homes and parks. The second draft of the Metrolinx Environmental Assessment says that air quality is so bad in Toronto that a 15% increase in our air pollution is negligible as contributed by this diesel corridor - tell that to those who will wipe soot off their windowsills daily, and wonder how much of this has ended up in their lungs.
It is known that exposure to fine particulate matter in diesel emissions stunt the growth of young lungs so that they never reach full capacity, so electrifying the diesel train system in 15 years time to electric is not fast enough, as proposed by Metrolinx- these students will be a generation of young adults with impaired lung capacity. An environmental expert has gone on record to say that he would not live within 250m of this corridor as it increases all types of illness by 18% as the particulate matter is absorbed through the lungs into the blood stream to become heavy metals as an additional load for the kidneys to bear, and accumulate as bodily toxins permanently.
In my neighbourhood, the Newmarket and Georgetown corridors run directly beside the West Toronto Collegiate's running track. And I mean directly- the Newmarket corridor is beside the fence of the field, and the Georgetown is 75 meters from the Newmarket. So, as students have gym class, they will breathe the diesel emissions of both the Georgetown and Newmarket corridors, as well as the Air Rail Link, of up to 464 train trips daily, rushing by their playing field.
Tell me then- why is the federal and provincial government voluntarily, under the moniker of Metrolinx, with full, readily available environmental knowledge regarding diesel emissions, choosing to endanger the health of school children? And, as the City Council has a mandate to decrease greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2050, why is the federal and provincial government working deliberately against the municipal government's mandate? Why is the City Council not moving more quickly to actively protect Toronto residents and school children through *more* than strongly worded municipal bylaws? Why does the City Council view this as outside their jurisdiction when it will undercut the positive effects of their greening policies?
Will Metrolinx, by extension the the federal and provincial government, pay the difference in what our houses can sell for after this corridor is built as opposed to what they were worth before it was built? The immediate area around the rail corridor will quite possibly become a ghost town in parts of the west end as people choose to sell their houses and move away from the noise and the smell. Will MPAC, if the municipal government does not protect the interests of homeowners, give me a reduction on my rising property taxes as my property and quality of life are devalued? Will Metrolinx be willing to pay the additional burden of my own, and many others, rising health costs and sick days due to my proximity to the corridor, to OHIP?
And why is this diesel corridor being built in the first place when electric train engineering standards and specifications are readily available for electric trains and used throughout major cities in the world? New York's electric train system was successfully built in 1908, why is the GTA one hundred years behind?
There must be a reason why this irrational project is being pounded through the GTA, and I will discuss it on my next post.
For more information about this GSSE, please go to the Clean Train Coalition Site at http://www.cleantrain.ca and the Weston Community Coalition Site at http://westoncommunitycoalition.ca/
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Industrial Corridor or Residential Neighbourhood?
I just learned that the Environmental Assessment process was deliberately shortened from one and a half to three years down to four months by the federal government to enable this massive Metrolinx expansion to be pushed through quickly so that those along the corridor do not have time to fight its expansion, or its overriding plan to use diesel trains.
According to the Environmental Assessment as posted by Metrolinx, 65 000 households, or 300 000 people will be affected by the expansion of this rail corridor, which is defined by those living 300m from the tracks. As a result, the area directly beside that corridor was termed 'industrial' and not worthy of preservation. However, if we extend that distance to 1km, 112 000 households and 1.2 million people will be negatively affected. Is this corridor still considered an industrial corridor with these updated numbers of people in houses, schools, parks, and nursing homes, and how was it considered 'industrial' with the original estimate of 300 000 people affected?
A proper Environmental Assessment needs to ask this question: how do environmental scientists determine how far particulate matter spreads from 400+ diesel trains a day realistically? Computer projections, as used by Metrolinx, do not support natural events such as wind currents, smog and precipitation, and certainly not how pollution spreads in actual time and space.
I teach new media and interaction design to my students, and one of my favourite quotes was from the original German movement of Greenpeace - 'What is in the air today, ends up in our cornflakes tomorrow'.
To prove this quote, I showed them this lecture by Bill Moggridge, founder of IDEO, which demonstrates how an interactive globe, designed by Shinichi Takemura, works to visualize data. This globe, called 'Tangible Earth', was created to be one ten millionth the scale of the earth, and shows how pollution spreads in realtime data. As you watch this globe, you can see pollution spreading by wind currents from continent to continent as it is actually happening- from Russia over to North America over to the North Pole.
So, if we consider that the diesel emissions from these trains can travel up to 30 km according to statistics from the World Health Organization, which is a conservative estimate, shouldn't we all be supporting electric trains in Ontario? This pollution will not just be in my backyard, but the entire Greater Toronto Area if this diesel corridor is installed...why not make this corridor electric, with no emissions?
Video Reference:
Bill Moggridge at PICNIC08: Design as a Collaborative Process, link to http://vimeo.com/2814939 go to 17:05 for the demonstration of 'Tangible Earth'.
According to the Environmental Assessment as posted by Metrolinx, 65 000 households, or 300 000 people will be affected by the expansion of this rail corridor, which is defined by those living 300m from the tracks. As a result, the area directly beside that corridor was termed 'industrial' and not worthy of preservation. However, if we extend that distance to 1km, 112 000 households and 1.2 million people will be negatively affected. Is this corridor still considered an industrial corridor with these updated numbers of people in houses, schools, parks, and nursing homes, and how was it considered 'industrial' with the original estimate of 300 000 people affected?
A proper Environmental Assessment needs to ask this question: how do environmental scientists determine how far particulate matter spreads from 400+ diesel trains a day realistically? Computer projections, as used by Metrolinx, do not support natural events such as wind currents, smog and precipitation, and certainly not how pollution spreads in actual time and space.
I teach new media and interaction design to my students, and one of my favourite quotes was from the original German movement of Greenpeace - 'What is in the air today, ends up in our cornflakes tomorrow'.
To prove this quote, I showed them this lecture by Bill Moggridge, founder of IDEO, which demonstrates how an interactive globe, designed by Shinichi Takemura, works to visualize data. This globe, called 'Tangible Earth', was created to be one ten millionth the scale of the earth, and shows how pollution spreads in realtime data. As you watch this globe, you can see pollution spreading by wind currents from continent to continent as it is actually happening- from Russia over to North America over to the North Pole.
So, if we consider that the diesel emissions from these trains can travel up to 30 km according to statistics from the World Health Organization, which is a conservative estimate, shouldn't we all be supporting electric trains in Ontario? This pollution will not just be in my backyard, but the entire Greater Toronto Area if this diesel corridor is installed...why not make this corridor electric, with no emissions?
Video Reference:
Bill Moggridge at PICNIC08: Design as a Collaborative Process, link to http://vimeo.com/2814939 go to 17:05 for the demonstration of 'Tangible Earth'.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
My Little House and 'NIMBYism'
So interesting to see the word 'NIMBYism' ('Not in my Backyardism') come into play in the political arena, thrown at protesters as if it explains anything and everything. If I do not protect my backyard, who will? As I sit by my window and work in West Toronto, I hear the horns of trains, the pounding of the West Toronto Diamond piledrivers, and the overhead, converging flight of airplanes- all present sources of pollution, and harbingers of more pollution yet to come.
I wonder each morning as I wake up- if this massive diesel rail expansion comes to pass- how much will I hear of the traffic between 5:30 am and 12:30 am daily as the 400+ trains go through this corridor near my little house? How much soot will I have on my windowsill? Why will I have to breathe particulate matter for the rest of my life? And why am I, a citizen who is so careful with every, single environmental decision I make, have to eat the diesel dust of commuters from the 905? And why am I paying taxes to the federal and provincial governments for transit which will pollute my backyard and my home for the rest of my life?
NIMBYism is a term that should be valid only if you do not reply to the issue with an alternate solution- and the obvious solution, used internationally, is electric trains. This is why I am fighting with facts for the electrification of the Georgetown, Union-Pearson Rail Link and Newmarket corridors- this dust will be in my backyard, and in my home, and in my life forever, and there is a solution that is not even being considered by the present provincial and federal governments. And where, oh where, are the Toronto city councillors who spend an inordinate amount of time discussing road narrowing and speed bumps to 'green' the City of Toronto, when I need them to protect my rights as a resident and taxpayer?
I wonder each morning as I wake up- if this massive diesel rail expansion comes to pass- how much will I hear of the traffic between 5:30 am and 12:30 am daily as the 400+ trains go through this corridor near my little house? How much soot will I have on my windowsill? Why will I have to breathe particulate matter for the rest of my life? And why am I, a citizen who is so careful with every, single environmental decision I make, have to eat the diesel dust of commuters from the 905? And why am I paying taxes to the federal and provincial governments for transit which will pollute my backyard and my home for the rest of my life?
NIMBYism is a term that should be valid only if you do not reply to the issue with an alternate solution- and the obvious solution, used internationally, is electric trains. This is why I am fighting with facts for the electrification of the Georgetown, Union-Pearson Rail Link and Newmarket corridors- this dust will be in my backyard, and in my home, and in my life forever, and there is a solution that is not even being considered by the present provincial and federal governments. And where, oh where, are the Toronto city councillors who spend an inordinate amount of time discussing road narrowing and speed bumps to 'green' the City of Toronto, when I need them to protect my rights as a resident and taxpayer?
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Democracy and Metrolinx? No way.
Fair Political Representation without Corporate Conflict of Interest, and Primary Health Prevention:
Canada is a democracy. As it is a democracy, residents of Toronto should have City Councillors as representatives on the Board of Directors of Metrolinx who express our grave concerns about this rail expansion in our neighbourhoods. Mayor Miller, who has worked so hard to implement greening measures in the City of Toronto, and Councillor Giambrone, the chair of the TTC, have been removed as our last representatives from Metrolinx' Board of Directors. Therefore, the residents of Toronto no longer have any representation for this project on Metrolinx at all.
By replacing Toronto's representatives entirely with Board of Directors on Metrolinx who actively represent the industrial, corporate interests of the rail expansion, these new Board of Directors have a direct conflict of interest with an unbiased Environmental Assessment and the democratic rights of the residents of Toronto to protect our quality of life and health. They will vote in favour of infrastructure implementation as their corporate interest.
Moreover, as primary prevention in the healthcare community becomes internationally accepted as the norm to prevent the creation of carcinogens at the source (in this case, diesel emissions), thereby future medical treatment, the federal and provincial governments are in direct conflict with their role as advocates for a healthy society. Will the federal and provincial government be prepared to carry the costs of medical treatments for the respiratory ailments that they have incurred in this rail corridor through these self-generated diesel emissions? Is it not contradictory that this corridor will put at risk children in parks and schools, hospitals nearby the tracks, and the elderly in nursing homes- all institutions that the government funds? Why would the federal and provincial government choose to undercut their support of federally and provincial institutions and faciliities by choosing to pollute the environment around the facilities that they have built and funded? This is an even greater conflict of interest of public interest with corporate investment, and indicates that the federal and provincial government no longer represents or protects its citizens.
Canada is a democracy. As it is a democracy, residents of Toronto should have City Councillors as representatives on the Board of Directors of Metrolinx who express our grave concerns about this rail expansion in our neighbourhoods. Mayor Miller, who has worked so hard to implement greening measures in the City of Toronto, and Councillor Giambrone, the chair of the TTC, have been removed as our last representatives from Metrolinx' Board of Directors. Therefore, the residents of Toronto no longer have any representation for this project on Metrolinx at all.
By replacing Toronto's representatives entirely with Board of Directors on Metrolinx who actively represent the industrial, corporate interests of the rail expansion, these new Board of Directors have a direct conflict of interest with an unbiased Environmental Assessment and the democratic rights of the residents of Toronto to protect our quality of life and health. They will vote in favour of infrastructure implementation as their corporate interest.
Moreover, as primary prevention in the healthcare community becomes internationally accepted as the norm to prevent the creation of carcinogens at the source (in this case, diesel emissions), thereby future medical treatment, the federal and provincial governments are in direct conflict with their role as advocates for a healthy society. Will the federal and provincial government be prepared to carry the costs of medical treatments for the respiratory ailments that they have incurred in this rail corridor through these self-generated diesel emissions? Is it not contradictory that this corridor will put at risk children in parks and schools, hospitals nearby the tracks, and the elderly in nursing homes- all institutions that the government funds? Why would the federal and provincial government choose to undercut their support of federally and provincial institutions and faciliities by choosing to pollute the environment around the facilities that they have built and funded? This is an even greater conflict of interest of public interest with corporate investment, and indicates that the federal and provincial government no longer represents or protects its citizens.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Diesel Trains are so Yesterday: An Open Letter regarding the Metrolinx Corridor Expansion
This is the first letter I sent to the Prime Minister, City Councillors, the MPs, and the MPPs, hence the tone. I was just starting to put all the facts together, and was horrified:
I am a Toronto resident who is very concerned about the expansion of the Georgetown corridor (including the Union-Pearson Rail Link) and Newmarket corridors using diesel trains. The construction on this project begins in 2010, and the Environmental Assessment process has been shortened to four months to be completed on July 30th.
This rail expansion should use electric trains to ensure that significant environmental concerns are resolved, and the expansion of this service does not merely shift the cause of pollution from highways to rail corridors. These rail corridors run beside schools, nursing homes, playgrounds and through residential neighbourhoods. The rights of the citizens who use these services, and live in these areas, should be considered as a major part of the Environmental Assessment process.
Also, the $875 million cost of this project is carried by taxpayers, and should be supported by those who will be affected most as the construction from the expansion disrupts neighbourhoods for years at a time. If the rail expansion is electric, the neighbourhoods will be more likely to support this massive project. The neighbourhoods will have difficulty dealing with the second disruption of their lives, if indeed, the rail corridor is to be electrified in 15 years as promised. Historically, it is rare that major public works are upgraded years after their construction, so this corridor should be built properly the first time as electric.
My specific concerns are as follows:
The hours of operation are cited as 5:30 am to 12:30 am each day. Due to these long hours, it is beholden to Metrolinx, and by extension the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada, to ensure that these trains are quiet, efficient, and non-polluting, as these hours of business extend far beyond noise restrictions for normal business hours.
The data from the Environmental Assessment of the Georgetown and Newmarket corridors, and the Union-Pearson Rail Link, should be merged and considered as one study as these two corridors, and the rail link, are contained within the very small, area of study entitled 'The Davenport Diamond' by Metrolinx. The Environmental Assessment should consider the proximity of these corridors south of Dundas, and include both lines of the rail expansion and UPRL as part of the overall environmental impact concurrently. Metrolinx has said that they will consider these Environmental Assessments separately, although these corridors are in the same neighbourhood. This does not seem to lead to conclusive data.
Diesel trains create significant CO2, NOx and SO2 and particulate matter emissions. Neighbourhoods are willing to accept the increased traffic (at a projected 300 - 500 trains a day) for the common good, but are legitimately concerned on the effect of this air and noise pollution on their health, welfare, and businesses.
The Metrolinx report states the diesel emissions will affect only 500m from its origin, but as the City of Toronto, and the GTA has become more dense in population, this is affects a very large area and population. The Metrolinx report has not updated its data on the population affected by the expansion to be up-to-date.
Urban planners and transportation analysts also know that traffic expands given the avenues available to it, and that the increased traffic on the rail corridor, airports and highways, will impact the quality of air in Ontario for generations to come. As a result, it should be imperative to construct an electric train now to attempt to offset the carbon emissions of the rail corridor component of this transportation expansion. There will be more than enough adverse environmental affects with the increasing airport and highway traffic in the future of the GTA.
Most countries in the world are developing completely electrified rail systems- including India and the United States- and Canada, as a wealthy nation, should be one of them. Why are we considering a technology which is far behind the TTC street car- an electric train which is already in successfully used throughout the City of Toronto? This rail corridor should set an environmental precedent for transit initiatives to come, as the Lakeshore GO train will be electrified in the near future, and so that these corridors are consistent with the American rail system.
Why is Metrolinx, and by extension the provincial and federal government, not performing international 'best practice' case studies of inner city and suburban transit initiatives to try to mitigate the environmental repercussions of this rail expansion on the GTA? There is nothing 'sustainable' about diesel trains, as cited in the Metrolinx report- just retrograde.
TransitCity, as projected by the City Council of Toronto, has proposed a GO train as the fixed link to Pearson Airport- why are SNC-Lavalin's 140 a day, two engine, refurbished 1950s diesel engines considered as a viable, environmentally sound alternative to the LRT as proposed by the City Council to be provided by the GTA, SNC-Lavalin's proposal was written in the 1990s, and is no longer valid as a solution to this rail link by targeting a limited market for the business class.
It is very important that the projected ridership on this rail corridor is studied in detail, and at this time, for its actual market need, and monitored as it is implemented, so that there is not empty space and excess capacity on these trains. The rail corridor should be also monitored and assessed frequently as it is used, so that its implementation and use are consistent with its environmental and social 'Return on Investment'. This rail corridor should not create more air and noise pollution from its traffic than it offsets.
In conclusion, as global warming continues as the most pressing concern internationally, it imperative that every major infrastructure project is considered with great intelligence, foresight and environmental analysis. This project is of the magnitude of the Big Dig in Boston, which wreaked havoc on Boston for years. Therefore, it is better that more planning and analysis is applied to these infrastructure plans before the project is built, as the cost of this project environmentally will be carried by the generations who live in Ontario for decades to come.
Ultimately, if this rail expansion is made electric, there will be even more jobs created for Ontario workers, and opportunities created for companies, as part of the greening research and development initiatives internationally. This advanced technology and intellectual property can then be exported to become a positive part of our legacy and international corporate reputation.
I am a Toronto resident who is very concerned about the expansion of the Georgetown corridor (including the Union-Pearson Rail Link) and Newmarket corridors using diesel trains. The construction on this project begins in 2010, and the Environmental Assessment process has been shortened to four months to be completed on July 30th.
This rail expansion should use electric trains to ensure that significant environmental concerns are resolved, and the expansion of this service does not merely shift the cause of pollution from highways to rail corridors. These rail corridors run beside schools, nursing homes, playgrounds and through residential neighbourhoods. The rights of the citizens who use these services, and live in these areas, should be considered as a major part of the Environmental Assessment process.
Also, the $875 million cost of this project is carried by taxpayers, and should be supported by those who will be affected most as the construction from the expansion disrupts neighbourhoods for years at a time. If the rail expansion is electric, the neighbourhoods will be more likely to support this massive project. The neighbourhoods will have difficulty dealing with the second disruption of their lives, if indeed, the rail corridor is to be electrified in 15 years as promised. Historically, it is rare that major public works are upgraded years after their construction, so this corridor should be built properly the first time as electric.
My specific concerns are as follows:
The hours of operation are cited as 5:30 am to 12:30 am each day. Due to these long hours, it is beholden to Metrolinx, and by extension the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada, to ensure that these trains are quiet, efficient, and non-polluting, as these hours of business extend far beyond noise restrictions for normal business hours.
The data from the Environmental Assessment of the Georgetown and Newmarket corridors, and the Union-Pearson Rail Link, should be merged and considered as one study as these two corridors, and the rail link, are contained within the very small, area of study entitled 'The Davenport Diamond' by Metrolinx. The Environmental Assessment should consider the proximity of these corridors south of Dundas, and include both lines of the rail expansion and UPRL as part of the overall environmental impact concurrently. Metrolinx has said that they will consider these Environmental Assessments separately, although these corridors are in the same neighbourhood. This does not seem to lead to conclusive data.
Diesel trains create significant CO2, NOx and SO2 and particulate matter emissions. Neighbourhoods are willing to accept the increased traffic (at a projected 300 - 500 trains a day) for the common good, but are legitimately concerned on the effect of this air and noise pollution on their health, welfare, and businesses.
The Metrolinx report states the diesel emissions will affect only 500m from its origin, but as the City of Toronto, and the GTA has become more dense in population, this is affects a very large area and population. The Metrolinx report has not updated its data on the population affected by the expansion to be up-to-date.
Urban planners and transportation analysts also know that traffic expands given the avenues available to it, and that the increased traffic on the rail corridor, airports and highways, will impact the quality of air in Ontario for generations to come. As a result, it should be imperative to construct an electric train now to attempt to offset the carbon emissions of the rail corridor component of this transportation expansion. There will be more than enough adverse environmental affects with the increasing airport and highway traffic in the future of the GTA.
Most countries in the world are developing completely electrified rail systems- including India and the United States- and Canada, as a wealthy nation, should be one of them. Why are we considering a technology which is far behind the TTC street car- an electric train which is already in successfully used throughout the City of Toronto? This rail corridor should set an environmental precedent for transit initiatives to come, as the Lakeshore GO train will be electrified in the near future, and so that these corridors are consistent with the American rail system.
Why is Metrolinx, and by extension the provincial and federal government, not performing international 'best practice' case studies of inner city and suburban transit initiatives to try to mitigate the environmental repercussions of this rail expansion on the GTA? There is nothing 'sustainable' about diesel trains, as cited in the Metrolinx report- just retrograde.
TransitCity, as projected by the City Council of Toronto, has proposed a GO train as the fixed link to Pearson Airport- why are SNC-Lavalin's 140 a day, two engine, refurbished 1950s diesel engines considered as a viable, environmentally sound alternative to the LRT as proposed by the City Council to be provided by the GTA, SNC-Lavalin's proposal was written in the 1990s, and is no longer valid as a solution to this rail link by targeting a limited market for the business class.
It is very important that the projected ridership on this rail corridor is studied in detail, and at this time, for its actual market need, and monitored as it is implemented, so that there is not empty space and excess capacity on these trains. The rail corridor should be also monitored and assessed frequently as it is used, so that its implementation and use are consistent with its environmental and social 'Return on Investment'. This rail corridor should not create more air and noise pollution from its traffic than it offsets.
In conclusion, as global warming continues as the most pressing concern internationally, it imperative that every major infrastructure project is considered with great intelligence, foresight and environmental analysis. This project is of the magnitude of the Big Dig in Boston, which wreaked havoc on Boston for years. Therefore, it is better that more planning and analysis is applied to these infrastructure plans before the project is built, as the cost of this project environmentally will be carried by the generations who live in Ontario for decades to come.
Ultimately, if this rail expansion is made electric, there will be even more jobs created for Ontario workers, and opportunities created for companies, as part of the greening research and development initiatives internationally. This advanced technology and intellectual property can then be exported to become a positive part of our legacy and international corporate reputation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
