Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[TOareaFan]

ToareaFan: From what I remember, you're a Brampton resident, right?

The Blue 22 plan screwed Brampton. I even had a fight with a prominent Mississauga booster here about all that.

The part of the editorial that I felt should be praised is the notion that environmental assessments have been "hijacked" into dealing with non-environmental matters.

As the editorial states, it does not make them invalid issues just that they should not be using the EA process to deal with them....which is essentially what happened here.

I am not sure how the Blue 22 "screwed" Brampton.....perhaps it did not add anything to Brampton (although it could be argued that the the necessary rail infrastructure improvements would not happen without Blue 22).....even if it did, however, I like to think I have enough intellectual honesty to not mask a social/political complaint inside an Environmental Assessment. I also like to think that I look at projects in a wholistic manner rather than a "if it ain't good for me...it ain't good" sorta way.

That sort of process is how you get projects that are good for the environment (how could trains to the airport as opposed to cars not be good for the environment) stalled/delayed/cancelled because of an environmental assessment.....absurd.

Whether Blue 22 should go ahead or not (taking into account all of the factors) is beyond me....to see a project like this stalled because of a minister refusing to deal with, even, the terms of reference for an Environmental Assessment is a clear hijacking of due process.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

wow! if westonites are nimby's for wanting to increase public transit and the potential of a rail corridor, nimby must mean something other than "not in my back yard". maybe it means "necessary infrastructure means business ya!" ?

the west end of the city can really benefit from weston's proposals for public rapid transit and turn a real profit. but if we must build anything just for the sake to create jobs, why not a new shiny pyramid for the god of "make work"? maybe we can top it off with a hammer and sickle.

 

[ShonTron]

Alright, here's my deconstruction of this awful editorial:

The proposed rail link between Toronto's Union Station and Pearson International Airport is precisely the sort of project governments should be investing in, as they seek to boost infrastructure spending.

A private, for profit, airport rail link charging at least $20 a ride? I thought this service required no public investment!

It is also a prime example of how an overreaching environmental assessment process can work against the public interest, and why John Baird, the federal Minister of Infrastructure, is right to seek ways to accelerate approvals.

Blue 22 worked against the public interest.

The planned train route, known as the "Blue 22," would do more than create jobs and pump government funds into a troubled economy (though it would do that, too); it would have benefit long past the end of the recession, and indeed was being considered long before it started. Providing easier access to the country's largest airport from the heart of its financial capital would be a boon to productivity.

Again, tell me why the centre-right G&M wants to pump government funds into a supposed private, profitable venture?

And perhaps the greatest benefit would be environmental, since allowing travellers to take a short train trip to the airport rather than a long car ride (particularly at peak hours of congestion) would significantly reduce pollution.

Yep, an exclusive rail link for which only single passengers headed directly downtown would see cost savings, ignoring intermediate markets or airport workers (who have to commute daily to the airport), will really reduce congestion on the Gardiner. No, it will only allow some travellers to avoid congestion. Pollution levels (especially since these will be short, diesel cars) won't be mitigated by that much.

More than a decade after the Blue 22 was first proposed, however, there has yet to be a shovel in the ground. In recent years, it has been bogged down in an environmental assessment that - as is often the case with infrastructure projects - has drifted far away from real environmental concerns.

It became instead a forum for local residents to fight the development on the ground that they don't want the train to run through their neighbourhoods.

NO! That's not what it is about. Much more complex - about splitting the neighbourhood, about having a hundred or more trains extra a day with zero benefit, and no public transit use. I don't need to go into detail.

While that is a fair concern that governments should take into consideration when planning, it is a social issue - not an environmental one.

So what is the G&M saying then? A separate social assessment (SA) should be a requirement? An EA is more than about "the enviroment" - it is also about social and built and cultural environments of an area it passes through. Learn what an EA means!

Now that the Crown corporation advancing the rail link has adopted the accelerated process, residents are up in arms; the head of the Weston Community Coalition recently speculated that "only lip service" would be paid to the "impact on the local community" and speculated that "the 'accelerated' EA was designed specifically for this project."

What's the Crown Corporation? Metrolinx? Or is it a private company like SNC or CN or the GTAA?

While there is room to reduce overlap between the federal and provincial governments, it is essential that one level or the other look closely at the risk for any environmental degradation. But worthwhile projects should not be delayed for years while environmental assessments are co-opted by activists. And at a time when "shovel-readiness" is considered a prerequisite, there is no reason relatively simple projects should require longer than six months to address.

Simple projects should be done quickly. But there is a mechanism when the whole EA has to be thrown out and rethought - a full EA. The simple fact that the proponent was also the consultant alone should have been enough to start again from scratch. Not to mention serious destructions of the built and social environments for a dubious project.

 

[TOareaFan]

I am pretty sure that "valid" concerns can (do?) get raised about every major project.....and that is why we end up not building anything.

So, we want to extend the the Yonge subway at a Metrolinx estimated cost of +/- $2.5b.....Mayor of Toronto, acting on behalf of his constituents demands some additional expenditures to address his concerns....new cost $5billion....when does that get built?

Different issues but similar result...nothing gets built.

 

[ShonTron]

The part of the editorial that I felt should be praised is the notion that environmental assessments have been "hijacked" into dealing with non-environmental matters.

Matters such as social and built environments are fair game for EAs and what an EA is supposed to cover. Not just natural environments. EAs are about maximizing community benefits while minimizing natural, built and social effects of construction and operation.

I am not sure how the Blue 22 "screwed" Brampton.....perhaps it did not add anything to Brampton (although it could be argued that the the necessary rail infrastructure improvements would not happen without Blue 22).....even if it did, however, I like to think I have enough intellectual honesty to not mask a social/political complaint inside an Environmental Assessment. I also like to think that I look at projects in a wholistic manner rather than a "if it ain't good for me...it ain't good" sorta way.

The orginal EA did not even promise much more in the way for increased train service on the Georgetown line or the VIA North Main Line, even though you'd think that adding 2 tracks to a 1-2 track corridor could be shared by hourly (or better) GO service, a few more VIA trains and airport trains. I was at the EAs - the quiet meeting at Bellwoods CC where the Strachan underpass was the biggest issue and the overflowing megachurch in Weston (EAs almost never get those kinds of crowds). I asked the GO guys about Brampton, and they told me SNC-Lavalin would have first dibs on anything there, and admitted that Brampton, under this EA was to get only a few more trains, despite promises of at least Lakeshore-type service. (Now Metrolinx is promoting at the minimum half-hourly diesel service to Brampton, or quite possibly frequent electric service).

Whether Blue 22 should go ahead or not (taking into account all of the factors) is beyond me....to see a project like this stalled because of a minister refusing to deal with, even, the terms of reference for an Environmental Assessment is a clear hijacking of due process.

Blue 22 was the biggest joke of an EA that I've seen before the re-do.

 

[TOareaFan]

Blue 22 was the biggest joke of an EA that I've seen before the re-do.

Then the correct thing for the minister to do would have been to respond to the ToR by sending them back and saying "try again".

Where the system was "hijacked" was in the minister letting it sit on his desk for +/- 2 years.

If it was such a joke, then it should have been an easy call and the proponent would have the task of coming up with a better set of ToRs.....the way it was handled, left them nothing to do but sit and wait.

 

[jamesbow]

I posted the following comment on Steve Munro's website, and I think it's also appropriate here:

I’ve got to lay my bias out here up front. One of my best friends is working hard for the Weston Coalition, and as such I’ve been given an up-close view of the neighbourhood’s beefs with the Blue 22 proposal that has galvanized the neighbourhood.

And I can’t stress enough how galvanized the neighbourhood has been. A public meeting in the Strachan area drew less than 100 people. A similar meeting in the Malton area drew a similar number of people. So many people showed up to the initial Weston public meeting that they had to cancel it due to fire regulations. The rescheduled meeting, which took place inside a church that could seat over 1500 had standing-room only crowds. That’s how much the neighbourhood cares about this.

There are two main beefs, as far as I can see, the big one being the complete closure of three level crossings in the middle of the neighbourhood. If you look at how the neighbourhood is structured, this is significant. The residential area exists on the east side of the railway tracks, and Weston Road, the main shopping area for the neighbourhood, is on the west side. Cut these connections, and the only means for residents to access their stores is either through the extreme north of the neighbourhood, or Lawrence Avenue. The result would be a neighbourhood divided, and that’s a lot to ask a neighbourhood to swallow. Depressing the tracks to allow pedestrian or full overpasses is complicated, since the line passes over Lawrence Avenue on a bridge. Since the initial revolt by Weston residents, one or more of those level crossings have been retained.

The neighbourhood is also upset that they see Blue 22 significantly increasing rail traffic through their neighbourhood (a service with 15 minute headways would send a high speed train through the neighbourhood every 7-8 minutes) with no benefit to the residents. As far as I know, the neighbourhood would have far less objection if those 15 minute frequencies in each direction came with actual train service either to the Airport or Downtown, at something far more affordable than the $20 fare that has been suggested for Blue 22.

But the big question, ultimately, is trust. Weston as a community has been suffering hard times for close to half a century — almost since the moment they were amalgamated into the Town of York. They’ve lost industry, and they’ve had more than their fair share of public housing placed in their neighbourhood. They’re economically depressed, and they believe that the Town of York, the Metro government and now Toronto City Council is ignoring the area’s needs. This is why I’d advise against telling Weston residents to “suck it up.†They’ve been sucking it up for a half century, and telling them to suck it up again confirms in their minds that the downtown council is arrogantly ignoring their needs.

Looking at the project as a whole, I see little benefit in Blue 22. Initially, all we’re going to get are a series of reconditioned RDCs operating at 15 minute intervals, shuttling at most between the Airport, Dundas West station and Union, with a $20 fare that would make the service useful to a limited number of business passengers. The project makes little sense to me, and should be abandoned. On the other hand, GO Trains operating with GO fares along the Weston sub, making all stops between Union and the Airport, would be of benefit not just to airport passengers but to residents and workers in the northwestern area of town. If Metrolinx wants to create something useful for the area and for commuters through the area, frequent GO service is the way to go, in my opinion.

 

[TOareaFan]

I posted the following comment on Steve Munro's website, and I think it's also appropriate here:

as an outsider who does not have a friend on the committee I am not as close to the situation.....but, from what I understand:

1. the issue of closing the 3 level crossings was compromised so that the "offer" on the table was that only 1 of the 3 would close.....that seems to be a pretty decent compromise (from observation these 3 crossings are not so far apart that closing one of them would cause a great deal of distance in re-routing someone's surface route).....if this compromise was not reached then I would easily support the group's opposition but I think this was a sensible compromise;

2. I am sorry, but opposing something in your backyard because you don't believe it is of benefit to you is NIMBYism (IMO). It may be something worth fighting for (that is if you believe you should have service and if you believe the fares are two high) but it is not, to me, an environmental issue.

3. The trust issue is, unfortunate, but clearly not an EA issue and clearly not something that the whole region should bear the cost of. Does this lack of trust mean that there is no proposal (other than their own) that they would ever let be built?

If I am wrong on the compromise with regards to the level crossings, I apologize...but it was my understanding that that issue (which, if I recall, was the only issue raised during the early days of the protests/opposition) was dealt with some time ago.

 

[urbanfan89]

So let me get this straight: the plan is to run refurbished 50 year old RDCs along the corridor. If the Transit City plan included refurbished PCC streetcars the Adam Giambrone would have been laughed out of the TTC.

 

[RedRocket191]

I am, and have always been, with James on this one.

By my calculations, based on observations of how the schedule changes when GO opens a new station, an all-stop line will take 30 minutes. When you consider the benefits that this will bring, the eight minutes difference is well worth it.

The only part of the Weston Community Coalition's platform that I do not agree with is the issue of propulsion. I would prefer an electric train, but modern diesel multiple unit trains are used around the world successfully. Parts of the London Overground are getting new Bombardier Class 172 Turbostar DMUs this year, and there are a few high speed DMUs in Germany running in ICE service.

Building a DMU to North American standards could be used as an economic stimulus, and could result in more frequent service going online while the electrification process takes place. I just don't think that an "electric or nothing" policy is a progressive policy.

 

[RedRocket191]

So let me get this straight: the plan is to run refurbished 50 year old RDCs along the corridor. If the Transit City plan included refurbished PCC streetcars the Adam Giambrone would have been laughed out of the TTC.

Is it really 50 years old when all the components are new...?

 

[ShonTron]

Yep, the insistance on electric powered trains is unfortunate (though it would be the ideal if we get frequent airport and Brampton regional rail services there, even Metrolinx has raised the possibility), though perhaps it is to try to focus on the plan of using reconditioned RDCs, and not modern low-emission DMUs.

 

[jamesbow]

I think we can certainly question the usefulness of a project when it benefits such a small subset of people, when more people can be brought aboard with something that is more inclusive.

If we were to drop Blue 22 and replace it with a real transit line, like GO Transit, operating all stops between the Airport and Union, then the line's public benefit improves substantially. Even at GO fares, the Weston residents -- not to mention those in northern Etobicoke -- will have had commute times to downtown Toronto cut by around thirty minutes. Otherwise, what benefits are there to the city as a whole if we build a line that caters only to business travellers at fares most citizens can't afford?

...James

 

[MisterF]

2. I am sorry, but opposing something in your backyard because you don't believe it is of benefit to you is NIMBYism (IMO). It may be something worth fighting for (that is if you believe you should have service and if you believe the fares are two high) but it is not, to me, an environmental issue.

What would you consider an environmental issue? As ShonTron has already mentioned, EAs go well beyond the natural environment, which is only a small part of any given EA. The issues you describe – route alignment, type of service, locations of crossings and bridges, closing streets, impact on neighbourhoods, station locations, even the question of whether or not improvements are needed - are exactly what EAs are designed to examine.

 

[TOareaFan]

I think we can certainly question the usefulness of a project when it benefits such a small subset of people, when more people can be brought aboard with something that is more inclusive.

If we were to drop Blue 22 and replace it with a real transit line, like GO Transit, operating all stops between the Airport and Union, then the line's public benefit improves substantially. Even at GO fares, the Weston residents -- not to mention those in northern Etobicoke -- will have had commute times to downtown Toronto cut by around thirty minutes. Otherwise, what benefits are there to the city as a whole if we build a line that caters only to business travellers at fares most citizens can't afford?

...James

And I might agree with most of that (probably would) but I don't think "incorrect business model" is a valid reason for the ministor of the environment to block a project by refusing to respond to the Terms of Reference for a EA.

The point is, while we might all agree that there are better alternatives, allowing a misuse of the EA process in one case, allows for it to be misused/abused in all cases and, therefore, we should expect (and accept) transit and infrastructure gridlock.

Just my opinion on how Blue 22 was derailed ..... not on whether Blue 22 was the best option. I do not agree or accept that this is an "ends justifies the means situation" because those means could be re-used in many cases where the ends do not justify them.