Better Transit is Better Business

Everything is political. As I go from transit conference to design conference, and I wonder why Metrolinx is building three - count them, three- new train tracks for an Air Rail Link to run Pan Am athletes to their Olympic Village for a total of twelve days, this is what I hear from transit experts repeatedly. The type of the trains, the choice of fuel, the number and placement of tracks, and which corridor is electrified first - Georgetown or Lakeshore - everything is based upon trade deals, secret memoranda of understanding, and political promises. And it is clear that my neighbourhood is not the winner in this horse race of Liberal promises, which date back to 1994, when Minister David Collennette took the Heathrow Express, and said "Toronto should have one of these, too". Note that the Heathrow Express is electric, rapid rail, and 99.9% on time, none of which will be true of the Air Rail Link.

The Union-Pearson Air Rail Link is costly, and duplicates new and existing transit routes. According to recent Metrolinx research on cost-benefit scenarios, only 17% of passengers will leave from Union Station, and only 4-7% of passengers will go from Pearson directly to Union Station. Three extra train tracks will be built for a choo choo train for executives, at $35 a ride, to ensure that they have extra leg room so they not have to rub pinstriped shoulders with riffraff. The riffraff includes me, as not only will this regional transit will skip the Bloor GO Station, there is no reason for me to loop back east to Union-Station to go west again, and pay two transit fares when I can call for an airport limo for roughly the same price. Redundant activity, and so is this unneeded cost of these three tracks in this corridor, duplicated by Transit City's Eglinton LRT, which has just begun to be built by the City of Toronto.

Our taxpayer's money is paying $1 billion to fund another white elephant, directly after the eHealth scandal, but this rail corridor is much more actively destructive to health, as it eats diesel and private property as rail land for dinner. At least the eHealth scandal generated mountains of paperwork and consultation fees, and no doubt paid for at least one cottage renovation, but has had no long lasting effects except to add to Ontario's $24.7 billion deficit. Why add three tracks to the cost of this Air Rail Link to the highest deficit in the history of Ontario, Minister Bradley? At the very least, if the Air Rail were electric, it would require fewer tracks and less land acquisition.

Two days ago, as I attended OCAD's Health and Design Conference, I asked these questions: Why do we have to prove through predictive statistics the affect on health of transit projects, rather than applying tried and true measures, such as electrification, as primary prevention policies to protect the health of citizens first? Why are the Ministers of Environment not advocating environmentally sustainable 'best practice' initiatives? Why is it that the provincial Minister of the Environment, John Gerretsen, has allowed a rolling submission process for data by Metrolinx for months after the September 1st deadline of the Environmental Project Review? Since when did Minister Gerretsen begin to work with a transit agency to allow them to revise their data for their EPR submission to enable them to use their choice of rolling stock and transit infrastructure, thus to privilege a public-private partnership? Why is it valid to model future air pollution data for Tier 4 'clean diesel' emissions, when the ultrafine particulate matter of Tier 4 has not been tested yet? And when do our communities get to have a public forum on their views on 'clean diesel' as it does not impact the amount of noise and vibration by rail traffic, and still necessitates the building of 5.5 meter high walls for 10 kilometers through their neighbourhoods, and in many cases, directly beside their homes and businesses?

I also attended the Canadian Urban Institute's Designing Transit Cities Conference where, ironically, Metrolinx was one of the sponsors. Case studies from Zurich, Portland and Paris were presented, and delighted the audience with the ingenuity of their design, sensitivity to community input, and transit implementation. Each of these cities did everything within their power to preserve and enhance the integrity of their built heritage, ensure that the area walking to the transit hub was beautified, and increase business opportunities around each station to ensure transit oriented development. In addition, the business plan and design for each station was designed specifically according to its neighbourhood demographics, topography, location, historical tradition and cultural heritage.

My favourite transit designs were the wayfinding signs and decals for the Light Rail Transit for the RATP in Paris, based upon icons taken from daily life- their cafes, their grates around trees on boulevards, and their gargoyles. Toronto is forty years behind Paris and Portland in its transit policy, yet in a networked society, we can easily get up to speed as we have access to other cities' knowledge and expertise. We can make progressive transit decisions, unlike those given lip service to by Metrolinx in their 'Big Move'. I say "we" because "we" should have input on how our communities are impacted by this transit network as it is our money and future quality of life, and it is clear that noise, vibration and their subsequent mitigation walls are not considered as part of this consultation process by the recent 'clean diesel' decision.

The big question is why has it been decided that all transit projects are healthy, and beneficial to communities by nature, so not worthy of a full Environmental Assessment to ensure that environmentally sustainable decisions are made? As the Toronto City Centre Airport has gone from 25,000 to 750,000 passengers between 2006 and 2009, and the west end of Toronto is the center for all this transit activity, why are the communities in this transit corridor and region considered expendable? In the case of the Air Rail Link and Georgetown corridor, once the corridor is built as diesel with the Pan Am Games as an excuse, with a seven, or eight, track rail capacity, it is unlikely to be electrified, and the frequency of traffic will increase due to the expansion- see the TCCA as a case study. As air and noise pollution in this region increases, businesses will be less likely to invest in these areas affected, as customers are reduced as residents sell their houses. People are already moving out of the Brockton Triangle, which is at the fork of the future rail traffic. In effect, the Georgetown South rail expansion is enabling business development and exurban expansion of the 905 region at the expense of 416 future business development, and investment, in businesses along the rail corridor. Better transit is better business for both the GTA and the 905 when passengers can get on and off to do business from a rail system that has multiple access points along the corridor by being electric.

Had the federal government given the $736 million loan guarantee, and around $450 million of under the counter subsidies, given to a private company, Porter, as federal funds to begin to rebuild and electrify the rail system in Ontario, the desire for short haul flights would be reduced, and we would join the rest of the developed world in enabling sustainable, electric transit, and alleviate the role of our megacities to carry the health burden for the majority of pollution for Canada. Pollution and poverty are hand in hand, and the closing of businesses, and their loss of clientele due to these toxic transit systems, both air and rail, is a very serious and legitimate concern. In effect, our tax money is being used to fund two separate, public-private transit partnerships, aided and abetted by governmental agencies- Porter Airlines and the Toronto City Center Airport, enabled by the Toronto Port Authority and the federal government, and SNC-Lavalin and the GSSE/UPRL enabled by Metrolinx and the provincial government. As GTA citizens, we should press for answers why. It is our tax money, our businesses, and our health which pay the price for others to profit.

This Air Rail Link will be a joyride for executives and athletes on our dime, with no benefit to the neighbourhood businesses it passes by on its way to Pearson Airport. Better transit does mean better business for present and future provincial prosperity. There is an important business case study by the Toronto's Business Improvement Areas which should be launched to research the future economic impact of this rail expansion on their businesses in the corridor. And it should be soon, as Metrolinx is saying that the Air Rail Link must be built as diesel to meet the Pan Am deadline.

References:
Heathrow Express at http://www.heathrowexpress.com/Home
OCAD Health and Design Conference at http://www.ocad.ca/about_ocad/news_events/health_summit/news.htm
Presentation by Rémi Ferredj, Director for Real Estate of the RATP, résident Directeur général des filiales SEDP et Logis-Transports (groupe RATP), Paris, France at the Canadian Urban Institute's Designing Transit Cities Symposium at http://www.canurb.com/events/event_details.php?id=270
Pollution Watch 'Rankings for Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin' and 'Pollution Poverty Report' recommending The City of Toronto pass the proposed Environmental Reporting, Disclosure and Innovation Programme, allowing for better tracking of pollutants in Toronto’s neighbourhoods, at http://www.pollutionwatch.org/pub/pollutionandpoverty.jsp
Community Air and the Toronto Port Authority at http://communityair.org/

Green Pan Am Games, Green Parks, and The Right to Play

Former Mayor David Crombie lobbies to keep 39 inner city school swimming pools open on April 17, 2009 because the City of Toronto cannot afford them. On October 22nd, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan announced that Ontario has the largest deficit in its history. On October 25th, my neighbourhood park, MacGregor Park, presented a children's play called "All Hallow's Train" about the train tracks crossing its border. On November 1st at the Pumpkin Parade in Sorauren Park, a mother put out her anti-diesel train pumpkin to represent the concerns of her 140 member Toronto Mom's Group for their childrens' health. On November 6th, Ontario won the bid to hold a $2.4 billion Pan Am Games in Toronto, 2015.

These seemingly unrelated facts are intricately interwoven. The two parks, MacGregor and Sorauren, have all the future eight tracks of railroad expansion running directly beside them, and these 464 trains daily will cause irreparable damage to these parks. I thought, as I watched the children's play, whether this play would be possible when the noise of the trains is a non stop wall of sound, and metallic diesel fumes from the trains fill the air. Metrolinx is currently purchasing MP40, 4000 horsepower locomotives, which are much heavier and noisier than previous stock, and their sound travels much further, with a distinctive, high pitched whine, and shudder when they brake. These new generations of children will have very little clean air, or quiet moments, in either playground, or on the running track, behind West Toronto Collegiate in 2015. I wonder if they will be able to perform with period costumes, cut out trains, rolling clocks, and stories written to delight in the railway and amuse their parents, when their lines cannot be delivered over the traffic.

It has been said again and again by Minister of Transportation, Jim Bradley, that the additional $200 - $300 million needed to electrify the Georgetown South Service Expansion and Air Rail Link - not the $8 or $10 billion repeatedly and erroneously stated by Metrolinx to dissuade the taxpayer - is too expensive, yet surprisingly, there is $2.4 billion for the Pan Am Games in the provincial and federal coffers. As part of this Pan Am Games, the Air Rail Link will take the athletes to the Olympic Village through these parks in west end neighbourhoods, so winning these games will speed up its construction to meet this hard deadline.

The Pan Am Games Committee has proclaimed that it wants to be the first 'green games in history'. I wonder what the athletes will think as they board the refurbished 1950s BUDD trains to go to their Olympic Village? If put to a vote, would they think that it is good sportsmanship to impair the lung capacity of children by diesel emissions when they are dependent on their own lung capacity to shave off milliseconds in their performance? The athletes will come from forty-two countries, many of whom have seen systemic poverty, and many of whom have learned that sportsmanship can bring opportunity to learn and travel. I am quite certain that many have been supported by the initiatives of the Right to Play, an organization which creates a healthier world for children through the power of sport and play in developing countries, and would say 'no' to giving children asthma.

In this era of private-public partnerships, untendered contracts, unbridled overspending and cronyism, it is unfashionable to say that I love my vulnerable Ward 18, and want to protect the health of all the children who act, learn and play sports in these parks. The athletes of the Pan Am Games should be made aware that my neighbourhood will be saddled with a diesel corridor which will impact my neighbourhood with a lifetime of pollution, vibration and noise, for their twelve day event. The free community-based events, the Pumpkin Parade, the children's performances, and the right of all children to play in parks without harm, mean the world to me. The welfare of my neighbourhood is priceless, and the health of the children who live within it is not to be used as collateral damage for a temporary sporting event, or air rail link. According to Unicef's Convention of the Rights of the Child, the use of diesel trains, with 'clean diesel' or not, for this rail expansion violates three of its fundamental principles: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; and to protection from harmful influences.

It seems to me that the cost to electrify the rail corridor is a pittance in comparison to the total budget of the Pan Am Games. When Ontario hosts the Pan Am Games, the contractual agreements for building the infrastructure should be transparent and tendered, the Air Rail Link should be built as electric from the beginning, and the impact of its construction should be considered in relation to the neighbourhoods so that it improves the quality of life of those who live there. It may be that the athletes' lodgings, which will be turned into low income housing, in the West Donlands, will be the only positive, permanent contribution of the Games for disadvantaged residents, if other areas affected are not considered, such as this transit corridor.

I am quite sure that the Pan Am Games Committee, and its athletes, will agree that the lung capacity of athletes is worth as much as those of children. The Pan Am Games Committee should practice what they preach, and publicly announce that the performance of the athletes is based upon good sportsmanship, optimal conditioning, and the right to play, and support the goals of social and environmental justice by ensuring this games has green, electric transit. The Pan Am Games should be green for all parks, playgrounds and track fields throughout Ontario, so that no child is harmed when the athletes come to compete. None of these budding actors, or athletes, in my neighbourhood deserves to have impaired lung capacity to host a twelve day event, or to not be able to play safely in their nearby park for the remainder of their life. The playing field should be level for all in the name of sportsmanship and social justice, internationally and locally.

References:
Crombie begs city to rescue 39 pools, The Star, April 17, 2009 at http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/619943
The Right to Play Canada at http://www.righttoplay.com/site/PageServer?pagename=canada
Unicef: 'Convention on the Rights of the Child' at http://www.unicef.org/crc/
'Ontario deficit billions more than expected' on October 22nd at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/714276--ontario-deficit-billions-more-than-expected