B2b – Air Quality Impact Assessment Report

B2b – Air QualityImpact AssessmentReport

REVIEWOFPARSONSPROPOSALTOUPGRADETRACKCIRCUITS

Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 8/31/17

i | P a g e

GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP

Final Air Quality Impact Assessment Report

For

Submittal Date: August 2017

Gannett Fleming Project No. 060277

Metrolinx Electrification Project Contract No. QBS-2014-IEP-002

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17

Rev. 6.0 i | P a g e

DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

The report dated August 28, 2017 (“Report”, which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has

been prepared by RWDI AIR Inc. (“RWDI”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. RWDI disclaims any

liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines,

costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information,

opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, RWDI

also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions.

In preparing the Report, RWDI has relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies,

individuals and companies as noted in the Report. RWDI has assumed that this information is factual

and accurate and has not independently verified such information. RWDI accepts no responsibility or

liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiency in such information.

The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the

Report and are based on the data and information collected by RWDI during its investigations as set out

in the Report. No assurance, representation or warranty is given regarding the accuracy or completeness

of this information and data. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are

based on the conditions encountered by RWDI at the site(s) at the time of its investigations,

supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report. No assurance,

representation or warranty is given with respect to any change in site conditions or the applicable

regulatory regime subsequent to the time of the investigations. No responsibility is assumed to update

the Report or the opinions, advice, conclusions or recommendations contained in it to account for

events, changes or facts occurring subsequent to the date of the Report.

The Report provides a professional technical opinion as to its subject matter. RWDI has exercised its

professional judgment in collecting and analyzing data and information and in formulating advice,

conclusions, opinions and recommendations in relation thereto. The services performed were

conducted in a manner consistent with the degree of care, diligence and skill exercised by other

members of the engineering and science professions currently practicing in similar conditions in the

same locality performing services similar to those required under the Contract for Technical and

Professional Services relating to Engineering, Design and Environmental Assessment for GO Rail Corridor

Electrification, Contract No. QBS-2014-IEP-002, subject to the time limits and financial and physical

constraints applicable to the services. No other assurance, warranty or representation whether

expressed or implied is given to Metrolinx with respect to any aspect of the services performed, the

Report or its contents.

Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17

Rev. 6.0 ii | P a g e

METROLINX GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION

Quality Assurance

Document Release Form

Name of Firm: RWDI AIR Inc.

Document Name: GO Transit Rail Network Electrification EA Final Air Quality Impact Assessment

Report Rev. No. 6

Submittal Date: August 29, 2017

Discipline: Air Quality

Prepared By: Peter Rehbein Date: August 28, 2017

Reviewed By: Mike Lepage Date: August 29, 2017

Approved By: Alain Carriere Date: August 29, 2017

Project Manager

The above electronic signatures indicate that the named document is controlled by RWDI AIR Inc., and

has been:

1. Prepared by qualified staff in accordance with generally accepted professional practice.

2. Checked for completeness and accuracy by the appointed discipline reviewers and that the

discipline reviewers did not perform the original work.

3. Reviewed and resolved compatibility interfaces and potential conflicts among the involved

disciplines.

4. Updated to address previously agreed-to reviewer comments, including any remaining

comments from previous internal or external reviews.

5. Reviewed for conformance to scope and other statutory and regulatory requirements.

6. Determined suitable for submittal by the Project Manager.

Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 iii | P a g e

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Date Comments

1.0 June 15, 2016 Draft Submission to Metrolinx

2.0 July 29, 2016 Metrolinx Comments Addressed

3.0 December 6, 2016 Additional Comments Addressed

4.0 June 22, 2017 MOECC Comments Addressed

5.0 July 27, 2017 Additional Metrolinx Comments Addressed

6.0 August 29, 2017 Final Submission to Metrolinx

GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 iv | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X

1 PURPOSE 1

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE 2

HYDRO ONE PROJECT COMPONENTS 3

METROLINX PROJECT COMPONENTS 3

STUDY AREA 4

1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION 7

2 METHODOLOGY 7

2.1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPACTS 7

OPERATIONS 7

MAINTENANCE 12

2.2 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 12

3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 13

3.1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPACTS 13

OPERATIONS 13

3.2 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 19

4 MONITORING ACTIVITIES AND COMMITMENTS 20

5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 21

6 CONCLUSIONS 24


Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 v | P a g e

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Future Diesel and Electric Train Trips by Corridor ....................................................................... 8

Table 3-1. Annual Emissions from Diesel Locomotives ............................................................................... 14

Table 3-2. Annual Indirect Emissions from Electric Locomotives ............................................................... 14

Table 3-3. Annual Net Impacts of Electrification Compared Against Tier 2 Diesel Scenario ...................... 15

Table 3-4. Annual Net Impacts of Electrification Compared Against Tier 4 Diesel Scenario ...................... 15

Table 3-5. Annual Ontario Emissions Compared Against Annual Net Impacts of Electrification ............... 19

Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Air Quality Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring/Commitments

.................................................................................................................................................................... 21

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. GO Transit Network .................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1-2. How the System Will Work ......................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-3. GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP Study Area ...................................................................... 6

Appendices

Appendix A – Diesel Train Emission Calculations

Appendix B – Electric Train Emission Calculations

Appendix C – Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains


Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 vi | P a g e

Glossary of Terms Word Definition

Autotransformer Apparatus which helps boost the overhead contact system (OCS) voltage and reduce the running rail return current in the 2 X 25 kV autotransformer feed configuration. It is a single winding transformer having three terminals. The intermediate terminal located at the midpoint of the winding is connected to the rail and the static wires, and the other two terminals are connected to the catenary and the negative feeder wires, respectively.

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e)

A measure used to assess the impact of various greenhouse gases. The amount of each greenhouse gas is converted to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that would have the global warming potential.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) A colourless and odourless gas and a by-product of combustion that is toxic to animals.

Catenary System An assembly of overhead wires consisting of, as a minimum, a messenger wire, carrying vertical hangers that support a solid contact wire which is the contact interface with operating electric train pantographs, and which supplies power from a central power source to an electrically-powered vehicle, such as a train.

Combustion The chemical process where a substance reacts with oxygen to release energy.

Combustion Emissions The emissions released from the combustion of fossil fuels. These include carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Contact Wire A solid grooved, bare aerial, overhead electrical conductor of an OCS that is suspended above the rail vehicles and which supplies the electrically powered vehicles with electrical energy through roof-mounted current collection equipment - pantographs - and with which the current collectors make direct electrical contact.

DMU Diesel Multiple Unit; a train comprising single self -propelled diesel units.

Electrical Section This is the entire section of the OCS which, during normal system operation, is powered from a TPS circuit breaker. The TPS feed section is demarcated by the phase breaks of the supplying TPS and by the phase breaks at the nearest SWS or line end. An electrical section may be subdivided into smaller elementary electrical sections

Electric Traction Facility A traction substation, paralleling station, or switching station.

EMU The acronym for Electric Multiple Unit; a train comprising single self-propelled electric units

Elementary Electrical Section The smallest section of the OCS power distribution system that can be isolated from other sections or feeders of the system by means of disconnect switches and/or circuit breakers.

Feeder A current-carrying electrical connection between the overhead contact system and a traction power facility (substation, paralleling station or switching station).

Fossil Fuels A group of combustible materials that have been formed from decayed plants and animals. These materials are often used as fuel by combusting them to release energy. Fossil fuels include oil, coal, and natural gas.


Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 vii | P a g e

Word Definition Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse gases are those gases that absorb infrared radiation emitted from the

Earth thus containing the energy within the atmosphere. Total greenhouse gases are typically expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which is the total mass of CO2 that would have the same impact on climate change as a mixture of greenhouse gases.

Grounding Connecting to earth through a ground connection or connections of sufficiently low impedance and having sufficient current-carrying capacity to limit the build-up of voltages to levels below that which may result in undue hazard to persons or to connected equipment.

Heavy Maintenance Heavy maintenance includes: replacement of engine traction motors, replacement of diesel engines on DMUs, replacement of transformers and ac propulsion systems on EMUs and replacement of wheel sets on engines. On railcars, heavy maintenance includes the replacement of wheel sets, repairs to windows and brake lines, and body repairs.

HEP Unit The Head End Power (HEP) Unit is a generator on the train used to provide electricity to passenger cars for the purposes of lighting, heating/cooling, etc.

Hydro One Hydro One Incorporated delivers electricity across the province of Ontario. Hydro One has four subsidiaries, the largest being Hydro One Networks. They operate 97% of the high voltage transmission grid throughout Ontario.

kV Abbreviation for kilovolt (equal to 1000 volts).

Maintenance Facility A mechanical facility for the maintenance, repair, and inspection of engines and railcars.

Messenger Wire In catenary construction, the OCS Messenger Wire is a longitudinal bare stranded conductor that physically supports the contact wire or wires either directly or indirectly by means of hangers or hanger clips and is electrically common with the contact wire(s).

Mitigation Measure Actions that remove or alleviate, to some degree, the negative effects associated with the implementation of an alternative.

Negative Feeder Negative feeder is an overhead conductor supported on the same structure as the catenary conductors, which is at a voltage of 25 kV with respect to ground but 1800 out-of-phase with respect to the voltage on the catenary. Therefore, the voltage between the catenary conductors and the negative feeder is 50 kV nominal. The negative feeder connects successive feeding points, and is connected to one terminal of an autotransformer in the traction power facilities via a circuit breaker or disconnect switch. At these facilities, the other terminal of the autotransformer is connected to a catenary section or sections via circuit breakers or disconnects.

Net Effect The effect (positive or negative) associated with an alternative after the application of avoidance/mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) A group of gaseous substances that are by-products of combustion, including nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).


Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 viii | P a g e

Word Definition Overhead Contact System (OCS)

OCS is comprised of: 1. The aerial supply system that delivers 2x25 kV traction power from

traction power substations to the pantographs of electric trains, comprising the catenary system messenger and contact wires, hangers, associated supports and structures including poles, portals, head spans and their foundations), manual and/or motor operated disconnect switches, insulators, phase breaks, section insulators, conductor termination and tensioning devices, downguys, and other overhead line hardware and fittings.

2. Portions of the traction power return system consisting of the negative feeders and aerial static wires, and their associated connections and cabling.

Pantograph Device on the top of a train that slides along the contact wire to transmit electric power from the catenary to the train.

Paralleling Station (PS)

An installation which helps boost the OCS voltage and reduce the running rail return current by means of the autotransformer feed configuration. The negative feeders and the catenary conductors are connected to the two outer terminals of the autotransformer winding at this location with the centre terminal connected to the traction return system. The OCS sections can be connected in parallel at PS locations.

Particulate Matter (PM) Microscopic solid or liquid particles that can become airborne.

PM2.5 Particulate matter that is less than 2.5 µm in diameter.

Phase Break An arrangement of insulators and grounded or non-energized wires or insulated overlaps, forming a neutral section, which is located between two sections of OCS that are fed from different phases or at different frequencies or voltages, under which a pantograph may pass without shorting or bridging the phases, frequencies, or voltages.

Portal Portal is an OCS structure that spans over the tracks between two OCS support poles located on the sides of the tracks in order to support the electrification equipment. The portal structure is used at multiple track locations where cantilever frames are not practical.

Preventive Maintenance Preventive maintenance includes items such as: replacing brake pads, measuring wheels, inspection of running gear, inspection and repair of central air conditioning, check radios and repair/replace, repair broken windows and doors, etc.

Regenerative Braking A method of braking which extracts the energy from the process such that it can be stored and reused later.

Running Rails Rails that act as a running surface for the flanged wheels of a car or locomotive.

Service Maintenance Service maintenance is the light maintenance of engines (i.e., window cleaning, check oil levels and sand levels, clean engine cab, refill potable water, and empty washroom holding tanks).

Static Wire (Aerial Ground Wire)

A wire, usually installed aerially adjacent to or above the catenary conductors and negative feeders, that connects OCS supports collectively to ground or to the grounded running rails to protect people and installations in case of an electrical fault.

Traction Power Substation Electric Traction Facility that transforms the utility supply voltage of 230 kV to 50 kV and 25 kV for distribution to the trains via catenary and negative feeders.


Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 ix | P a g e

Word Definition Switching Station (SWS) SWS is an installation where the supplies from two adjacent traction power

substations are electrically separated and where electrical energy can be supplied to an adjacent but normally separated electrical section during contingency power supply conditions. It also acts as a paralleling station.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

A class of chemicals that contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms and have high vapour pressures at room temperature, and therefore exist predominantly in the gas phase.


Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 x | P a g e

Executive Summary

Metrolinx is undertaking a Transit Project Assessment study under Ontario Regulation 231/08 - Transit

Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings for electrification of the GO Rail Network. The Project is to convert

much of the GO Rail Network from diesel to electric power. The purpose of this report is to document

the air quality impact assessment that was carried out as part of the GO Rail Network Electrification

Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) including the identification of potential net effects to air

quality as a result of the Project.

Electrification will result in a significant reduction of diesel emissions which have both local and regional

impacts, but also requires increased electricity generation, some of which will come from power plants

operating on fossil fuel, thus adding back some regional impacts. This study quantifies the emissions

from both the electricity generation required to power the electric trains based on the future (2025)

service levels, and from the locomotives themselves if the trains were to remain diesel-powered. These

calculations are used to establish what the net change in regional emissions will be due to

electrification. The impact on climate change is also assessed by quantifying the emissions of

greenhouse gases (as carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e) for diesel versus electric trains.

Overall, electrification of the GO Rail Network shows a net reduction in total emissions when compared

to present-day (mostly Tier 2/3) or potential future (Tier 4) diesel-powered trains.

The reduction in diesel exhaust emissions will translate into a reduction in the local levels of air

pollutants at locations adjacent to the rail corridors. The local emissions from diesel combustion for the

trains that will be electrified will be eliminated and therefore local concentrations of these pollutants

will decrease but will not be eliminated completely due to other local sources. In terms of regional air

quality implications and greenhouse gas emissions, the total Provincial benefit is small, but relative to

GO operations the benefit is significant. Electrification of the GO Rail Network shows a net reduction in

total emissions when compared to diesel-powered trains.

Two existing maintenance facilities (Willowbrook and East Rail Maintenance Facility) will be modified to

accommodate electric GO Trains. No significant changes to emissions or new sources of air emissions

are expected as a result of modifying the existing maintenance facilities to accommodate electric GO

Trains.

Construction activities will involve heavy equipment that generates air pollutants and dust. Mitigation

of construction emissions is normally achieved through diligent implementation of operating procedures

such as watering or applying other dust suppressants, covering up stockpiles, reducing travel speeds for

heavy vehicles, minimizing haul distances, and efficiently staging the activities.


Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 1 | P a g e

1 Purpose

Metrolinx is undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Transit Project Assessment

Process (TPAP) under Ontario Regulation 231/08 - Transit Projects and Metrolinx Undertakings for

electrification of the GO Transit Rail Network (see Figure 1-1). The Project involves conversion of several

rail corridors within the GO Transit network from diesel to electric propulsion. The undertaking will

entail design and implementation of traction power supply and distribution components including an

Overhead Contact System (OCS) along the rail corridors, as well as a number of electrical power

supply/distribution facilities located in the vicinity of the rail corridors.

Electrification of the GO Transit network also requires electrical power to be supplied from Ontario’s

electrical system through Hydro One’s existing high voltage grid via new high voltage (e.g., 230kV)

connections to the Traction Power Substations. The design/routing of these connections will be detailed

as part of the conceptual design to be completed.

Figure 1-1. GO Transit Network

The purpose of this report is to document the Air Quality impact assessment that was carried out as part

of the GO Rail Network Electrification Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), including identification

of potential effects, a description of proposed avoidance/mitigation/compensation measures (if

required), the resulting net effects, and monitoring/commitments.



1.1 Project Scope

The scope of the GO Transit Rail Network Electrification undertaking will involve electrification of several

rail corridors including:

1. Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) – From UP Express Union Station to Don Yard Layover

2. Lakeshore West Corridor – From just west of Bathurst (Mile 1.20) to Burlington

3. Kitchener Corridor – From UP Express Spur1 (at Highway 427) to Bramalea

4. Lakeshore East Corridor – From Don Yard Layover to Oshawa Station

5. Barrie Corridor – From Parkdale Junction (off Kitchener Corridor) to Allandale Station

6. Stouffville Corridor – From Scarborough Junction (off Lakeshore East Corridor) to Lincolnville

Station

In order to electrify the system, there is new infrastructure that needs to be built as well as

modifications to existing infrastructure that are required which have been summarized below.

The scope of the GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP includes examining the potential environmental

effects of building, operating and maintaining the electrified GO system including the various project

components listed below.

Traction Power Supply

o 5 Hydro One Tap Locations

o Hydro One Tap Structures

o High Voltage Connection Routes

Traction Power Distribution

o 5 Traction Power Substations (TPS)

o Gantries

o Underground Duct Banks

o Overhead Contact System (OCS)

o 5 Switching Stations (SWS)

o 6 Paralleling Stations (PS)

o 4 25 kV Feeder Routes

1 The portion of the Kitchener corridor from Strachan Ave. to the airport spur (at Highway 427) was previously assessed/approved as part of the Metrolinx UP Express Electrification EA.



Ancillary Components

o Grounding and Bonding

o Bridge Modifications

o Maintenance Facility Modifications

o GO Layover Facility Modifications

o GO Station Modifications

It is important to note that the scope of the Project does not include the new infrastructure required to

provide increased GO service levels associated with Regional Express Rail such as track expansions,

grade separations, etc. Rather, these aspects are currently being (or will be) designed and assessed as

part of separate Metrolinx projects that are (or will be) subject to separate Environmental Assessments.

Hydro One Project Components

Electrification of the GO Transit network requires electrical power to be supplied from Ontario’s

electrical system through Hydro One’s existing high voltage grid. This will entail construction of new tap

structures that will draw the necessary electrical power from Hydro One’s existing 230kV grid. From

there, the power will be conveyed to new Traction Power Substations (TPS) via 230kV high voltage

connections routes (either aerial or underground), where it will then be stepped down to the

appropriate voltage of 25kV for distribution along the electrified GO system (see Figure 1-2).

Metrolinx Project Components

Metrolinx will be responsible for all of the ‘downstream elements’ of the system from the demarcation

point including all traction power distribution components and ancillary works required for operation of

the electrified system (see Figure 1-2).

Figure 1-2. How the System Will Work



Study Area

The Study Area for the GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP includes the following components (see

Figure 1-3):

1. Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) – From UP Express Union Station to Don Yard Layover

2. Lakeshore West Corridor – From just west of Bathurst (Mile 1.20) to Burlington, including:

i. Mimico Tap Location

ii. Burlington Tap Location

iii. Canpa 25kV Feeder Route

iv. Mimico TPS

v. Mimico SWS

vi. Burlington TPS

vii. Oakville SWS

viii. Gantries, duct banks, access routes

3. Kitchener Corridor – From UP Express Spur2 (at Highway 427) to Bramalea, including:

i. Bramalea PS

ii. Bramalea 25kV feeder route

iii. Gantries, duct banks, access routes

4. Barrie Corridor – From Parkdale Junction (off Kitchener Corridor) to Allandale Station, including:

i. Allandale Tap Location

ii. Allandale TPS

iii. Allandale 25kV Feeder Route

iv. Gilford PS

v. Newmarket SWS

vi. Maple PS

vii. Gantries, duct banks, access routes

5. Stouffville Corridor – From Scarborough Junction (off Lakeshore East Corridor) to Lincolnville

Station, including:

i. Scarborough Tap Location

ii. Scarborough TPS

iii. Scarborough 25 kV Feeder Route

2 The portion of the Kitchener corridor from Strachan Ave. to the airport spur (at Highway 427) was previously assessed/approved as part of the Metrolinx UP Express Electrification EA.



iv. Unionville PS

v. Lincolnville PS

vi. Gantries, duct banks, access routes

6. Lakeshore East Corridor – From Don Yard Layover to Oshawa Station, including:

i. East Rail Maintenance Facility (ERMF) Tap Location & 230kV connection

ii. ERMF TPS

iii. Scarborough 25 kV Feeder Route

iv. Scarborough SWS

v. Durham SWS

vi. Don Yard PS

vii. Gantries, duct banks, access routes

It should be noted that the electrification of the UP Express Route (along a portion of the Union Station

Rail Corridor and Kitchener Corridor) from UP Express Station (just west of the Union Station Train Shed)

to Terminal 1 Station at Pearson International Airport, including power supply and power distribution

components, was previously assessed as part of the two previous EA projects:

Metrolinx Union Pearson Express Electrification Transit Project Assessment (June, 2014)

Hydro One Union Pearson Express Electrification Traction Power Substation Class Environmental

Assessment - Draft Environmental Study Report (2014)



Figure 1-3. GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP Study Area



1.2 Report Organization

For purposes of differentiating the various types of potential environmental effects related to the GO

Transit Rail Network Electrification project, they were characterized and grouped as follows:

Operations and Maintenance Impacts

Potential longer term effects due to operations and maintenance activities associated with the electrified GO Transit network.

Construction Impacts Potential shorter term effects due to construction activities associated with the electrification project.

Section 2 of this report discusses the methodology used to assess the air quality impacts of the project

including the operations and maintenance and the construction impacts. Section 3 of this report

provides a detailed assessment of the anticipated net effects associated with the GO Rail Network

Electrification project. Specifically, Section 3.1 summarizes the operations/maintenance effects, and

Section 3.2 summarizes the construction related effects.

2 Methodology

This section discusses the methodology used to assess the air quality impacts with respect to

construction, operation and maintenance of the electrified railway system. The methodology followed

was documented in a work plan that was previously submitted to and approved by Metrolinx.

2.1 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

Operations

The operations are based on a credible worst-case scenario. The credible worst-case scenario is based

on the minimum infrastructure requirements to achieve a service goal. Regulations and policies based

on operational and safety considerations limit the service levels that can be achieved for a given

infrastructure design.

Current rail regulations are principally governed by Transport Canada and the US Federal Rail

Administration. Rail policy has also been developed by the American Railway Engineering and

Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

Metrolinx, CN and CP have also established additional operational policies, standards, and rules to

ensure safe and reliable service.



Collectively, these regulations and policies dictate how railways are designed, operated and maintained.

To expand rail service, the regulations and policies have to be considered. If the existing infrastructure

does not allow expanded service, then new infrastructure must be considered. Service goals represent

long term planning upon which infrastructure plans are developed.

Therefore, the proposed infrastructure and service levels represent a credible worst-case scenario.

For diesel-powered trains, each locomotive includes a main engine for motive power, and a generator

(termed Head End Power unit, or HEP unit) that provides electricity to passenger cars for the purposes

of lighting, heating/cooling, etc. Both the engine and the HEP unit emit contaminants of concern due to

the combustion of diesel fuels.

For electric-powered trains, the motive power, all lighting, heating/cooling, etc. are supplied by

electricity. Although in this case there are no direct combustion emissions from the trains themselves,

there could be increased emissions from fossil fuel power plants in order to meet the additional

electricity demand as a result of the electrified trains.

In order to assess the impacts of the project on air quality, it was necessary to quantify and compare the

fossil fuel emissions from two scenarios:

1. A baseline scenario where the trains that are planned to become electrified are assumed to

remain diesel-powered; and

2. an electrification scenario where the same number of trains are electrified, requiring increased

power from fossil fuel power plants.

It should be noted that only the specific rail corridors outlined in Section 1.1.3 will be electrified. As

such, the trains that will travel on the non-electrified corridors must remain diesel-powered. However,

as this assessment focuses on the change in emissions between the two scenarios, trains that will

remain diesel powered were excluded from this assessment as their emissions will not change. For

reference, Table 2-1 lists the daily number of diesel and electric trains along each corridor being studied.

Table 2-1. Future Diesel and Electric Train Trips by Corridor

Corridor Segment Diesel Trains (trips/day)

Electric Trains

(trips/day)

Union Station UP Express Union Station to Don Yard Layover 56 408

Lakeshore West Strachan Avenue to Willowbrook Yard 116 188

Willowbrook Yard to Burlington Station 64 172

Kitchener UP Express Spur (at Highway 427) to Bramalea

Station 22 164

Barrie Parkdale Junction to Aurora Station 0 180



Corridor Segment Diesel Trains (trips/day)

Electric Trains

(trips/day)

Aurora Station to Bradford Layover 0 46

Bradford Layover to Allandale Waterfront Station 0 44

Stouffville

Scarborough Junction to Unionville Station 0 180

Unionville Station to Mount Joy Station 0 42

Mount Joy Station to Lincolnville Station 0 16

Lakeshore East

Don Yard Layover to Scarborough Station 0 408

Scarborough Station to Whitby Station 0 228

Whitby Station to East Rail Maintenance Facility 0 228

Whitby Station to Oshawa Station 0 210

Besides combustion emissions, the trains also produce non-exhaust emissions of particulate matter,

which arise from normal wear and tear on the rails, wheels, brake linings, and other moving parts.

These emissions are produced by both diesel and electric trains and are not expected to change

significantly as a result of electrification. Therefore, they are not discussed further in this report.

The quantification of combustion emissions from diesel locomotives is described in Section 2.1.1.1 and

the quantification of emissions from the additional electricity demand is described in Section 2.1.1.2.

The electrification will also require the need for traction power supply and distribution facilities which

are discussed in section 2.1.1.3.

Diesel Locomotive Emissions

The pollutant sources from diesel-powered trains include the main engine and the HEP unit which both

emit contaminants of concern due to the combustion of diesel fuels. The by-products of diesel

combustion include inorganic gases (carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen), airborne particles

(particulate matter or PM), organic gases (i.e., volatile organic compounds, or VOCs), and greenhouse

gases (mainly carbon dioxide).

The U.S. EPA has sets of standards for emissions from various internal combustion sources including

locomotives and generators. In the interest of reducing emissions from railway operations, railway

operations in Canada must also comply with these standards through the Railway Safety Act. These

standards are phased in through a tiered approach where Tier 0 is the least stringent (highest emissions)

and Tier 4 is the most stringent (lowest emissions).

GO Transit currently uses diesel locomotives including 5 F59PH and 50 MP40 locomotives which are

available for use, but their total fleet consists of 8 F59PH and 67 MP40 locomotives. Of the total fleet,

the F59PH locomotives were rebuilt in 2001/2002 and comply with Tier 1 standards, 27 of the MP40s

were purchased in 2007 and comply with Tier 2 standards, and the remaining 40 MP40s were purchased

in 2010/2014 and comply with Tier 2/3 standards. For the purposes of this study, two diesel-emission



scenarios were assessed. The first scenario assumed that all future trains that are to be electrified as

part of the Project are diesel-powered and in compliance with the U.S. EPA Tier 2 emission standards,

and the second scenario assumed that these future trains are to be updated and will be in compliance

with the U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards. It was also assumed that all HEP units meet the U.S. EPA

Tier 2 or Tier 4 non-road emissions standards for engines greater than 750 hp, for first and second

scenarios respectively. These emission standards are summarized in Table A-1 of Appendix A.

In order to quantify the total emissions, it was necessary to determine the number of trains, the speed

of the trains, and the horsepower of both the locomotive engine and the HEP unit along each segment

of track shown in Figure A-1 of Appendix A. Train speed and engine horsepower for each segment were

based on average values obtained from trip log data for each rail corridor. The trip log data used was

provided by Metrolinx and recorded the train throttle settings and speed profiles for various local trains

travelling in both directions along all rail corridors in September, 2015. Average values were used across

several segments when the speed and engine horsepower remained fairly consistent. The speed and

engine horsepower used for each segment are shown in Table A-2 of Appendix A. The HEP unit was

assumed to operate at 50% load which corresponds to 654 bhp.

The number of electric trains that will be running along each corridor segment was based on the future

2025 weekday train schedule, including non-revenue movements. The number of train movements per

day on each segment is listed in Table A-2 of Appendix A.

This information was used to determine the emissions for a single weekday along each rail segment and

for the entire rail network. Total annual emissions were calculated assuming that the weekday

emissions occur for 251 days of the year, Saturday emissions are 60% of the weekday emissions and

occur for 52 days of the year, and Sunday and holiday emissions are 55% of the weekday emissions and

occur for 62 days of the year. This is shown in Table A-3 of Appendix A. This approach is consistent with

that used to determine the total annual electricity demand by the Project (Gannett Fleming, 2016).

Emissions from Electricity Generation for Electric Locomotives

Electrification will reduce the diesel exhaust emissions from the trains, but requires increased electricity

generation, some of which will come from power plants operating on fossil fuel and emitting air

pollutants of their own. The total electricity demand for the GO Transit system was provided Gannett

Fleming (Gannett Fleming, 2016) which includes the assumptions on which the electricity demand was

based and this report is included in Appendix C. Estimating the increase in fossil fuel emissions from

electricity generation requires emission factors in tonnes per megawatt-hour that represent the power

generation mix that will supply the necessary electricity to the GO Transit network.

Approximately 28% of Ontario’s electricity generation capacity consists of fossil fuel power plants. The

remainder consists of nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar powered facilities. In terms of actual

production, it is seldom, if ever the case that all of Ontario’s fossil fuel power plants operate at full



capacity at one time, even during peak demand periods. On an average day, only about 10% of

Ontario’s electricity comes from the fossil fuel plants.

The electricity demand of an electrified GO Transit system would vary widely throughout the day, from

minimal demand overnight to peak demand during high traffic periods. As such, the electricity demand

of the transit system may be met primarily by power sources that can be ramped up and down relatively

quickly and reliably, i.e., by fossil fuel power plants as opposed to nuclear, hydro, solar or wind. Thus,

while only about 10% of Ontario’s total electricity comes from fossil fuel power sources on average,

during periods of peak demand, a much higher proportion of the total electricity could come from such

sources.

Based on these considerations, two scenarios were examined:

i. only 10% of the electricity for the electrified train system comes from fossil fuel sources

(probable best-case emissions scenario representative of a situation where the additional

electricity demand is met by the average daily production profile); and

ii. 28% of the electricity for the electrified train system comes from fossil fuel sources (most

likely emissions scenario representative of a situation where the additional electricity

demand is met by a variety of power generating stations operating at levels approaching

capacity).

It cannot be said which emissions scenario applies at any time, and therefore these scenarios were

developed to bracket the range of actual conditions that are likely to occur. The second scenario is

based on Ontario’s electricity generation capacity, and is assumed to be representative of the typical

source mix during the peak hours when the GO Transit system is in high demand.

Table B-1 of Appendix B lists Ontario’s electricity output for 2015 from various fuel types (in megawatt-

hours) and Table B-2 of Appendix B lists the province’s total emissions of NOx, PM2.5, and CO2e from the

electricity sector for the year 2015 (in tonnes). The values in Table B-2 were divided by those in Table B-

1, so as to obtain emission factors in units of tonnes per megawatt-hour, as shown in Table B-3 of

Appendix B. Note that total emissions of CO and VOCs from Ontario’s energy sector were not available

but emission factors for these pollutants were instead developed from the U.S. EPA emission factors for

stationary gas turbines which are representative of the gas power plants in Ontario (U.S. EPA, 2000).

The emission factors for electricity generation alongside the total weekday electricity consumption for

the electrification of the trains (shown in Table B-4 of Appendix B) were used to estimate the total

weekday emissions associated with the Project (shown in Table B-5 of Appendix B). Total annual

emissions were calculated assuming that the weekday emissions occur for 251 days of the year,

Saturday emissions are 60% of the weekday emissions and occur for 52 days of the year, and Sunday

and holiday emissions are 55% of the weekday emissions and occur for 62 days of the year. This is



shown in Table B-6 of Appendix B. This approach is consistent with that used to determine the total

annual electricity demand by the Project (Gannett Fleming, 2016).

Traction Power Supply and Distribution Facilities

In order for electricity to be supplied to the GO Rail Network, Metrolinx will ‘tap into’ the existing Hydro

One high voltage grid through tap locations. Electrical power will be supplied through new high voltage

connections to the new traction power substations (TPSs). It will then be distributed throughout the GO

rail corridors via an overhead contact system (OCS) with paralleling stations (PSs) and switching stations

(SWSs) to help distribute the electric power. As discussed in Section 1, and shown in Figure 1-3, there

will be the addition of six TPSs, five SWSs, seven PSs, and five tap points.

The distribution of electricity does not produce air pollutants and therefore these systems are not

discussed further in this report as no impacts will be generated.

Maintenance

In general, the electrified system will have lower maintenance requirements than a diesel-powered

system. The electric system will require an increase in right-of-way maintenance due to the added

infrastructure of the traction power system, but the added amount of activity is small compared to that

required for maintenance of tracks, signals and structures.

No new maintenance facilities will be built to support GO Rail Network Electrification. Rather, two

existing maintenance facilities (Willowbrook and East Rail Maintenance Facility) will be modified to

accommodate electric GO Trains.

The maintenance facilities are used for both scheduled progressive maintenance and unscheduled

repairs and inspection of the trains. Some of the activities that occur there include locomotive and

coach inspection and repairs, washing, fueling, and storage. Some changes would be required to the

construction of the maintenance facilities to incorporate the electrified trains such as grounding within

the building and necessary clearance and overhead cranes to accommodate the OCS.

No significant changes to emissions or new sources of air emissions are expected as a result of modifying

the existing maintenance facilities to accommodate electric GO Trains. As such, these facilities were not

assessed further as no impacts will be generated.

2.2 Construction Impacts

Air quality impacts from construction activities are largely unavoidable, but are only temporary in nature

and their impacts can be minimized with adequate controls. The main construction activities for this

project include:



1. The preparation and creation of Traction Power Facilities including paralleling, switching, and

supply substations;

2. The installation of OCS support foundation structures;

3. The OCS wiring; and

4. Bridge work including their replacement or modifications and the installation of safety barriers.

Air quality impacts from the construction phase are not quantitatively assessed but are discussed in a

qualitative manner along with potential mitigation measures. In general, the total emissions from

construction activities are expected to be minimal compared to the total regional emissions quantified

in this report, especially over the long term.

3 Impact Assessment

3.1 Operations and Maintenance Impacts

Operations

Diesel Locomotive Emissions

Table 3-1 summarizes the total annual emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO),

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5), and

greenhouse gases in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from the diesel trains. These emissions

include only the corridors proposed for electrification, and exclude trains that will remain diesel-

powered in the future, as noted in Section 2.1.1. These emissions are compared against the indirect

emissions from electricity generation for electric locomotives in Section 3.1.1.3 and are shown in Figures

3-1 to 3-5.



Table 3-1. Annual Emissions from Diesel Locomotives

Pollutant

Annual Emissions

(tonnes/year)

Tier 2 Emissions

Standards

Tier 4 Emissions

Standards

NOx 3,170 660

CO 1,050 1,050

VOC 294 88

PM2.5 108 16

CO2e 327,000 327,000

Emissions from Electricity Generation for Electric Locomotives

Table 3-2 summarizes the total annual indirect emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, PM2.5, and CO2e from

electrified trains. These emissions are presented for two electrification scenarios (with and without

regenerative braking, which stores and reuses energy from the braking process) and for two emission

scenarios (assuming electricity generation follows the current average distribution across all types of

power generating stations, and assuming electricity generation is met by a variety of power generating

stations operating at levels approaching capacity). These scenarios are compared against the direct

emissions from diesel powered locomotives in Section 3.1.1.3 and are shown in Figures 3-1 to 3-5.

Table 3-2. Annual Indirect Emissions from Electric Locomotives

Pollutant

Annual Emissions

(tonnes/year)

Average Electricity Production

(10% from fossil fuels)

Capacity Electricity Production

(28% from fossil fuels)

Without

Regenerative

Braking

With

Regenerative

Braking

Without

Regenerative

Braking

With

Regenerative

Braking

NOx 40.7 37.1 114 104

CO 22.3 20.4 62.6 57.1

VOC 0.572 0.522 1.60 1.46

PM2.5 1.14 1.04 3.20 2.92

CO2e 32,700 29,800 91,500 83,500

Net Impacts of Electrification

Tables 3-3 and 3-4 show the change in emissions between the diesel trains and electric trains, both as

an absolute value and as a percent change. Table 3-3 is comparing against the Tier 2 diesel scenario and

Table 3-4 is comparing against the Tier 4 diesel scenario. These emission differences are also illustrated

in Figures 3-1 to 3-5. Again, these emissions are presented for two electrification scenarios (with and



without regenerative braking) and for two emission scenarios (assuming electricity generation follows

the current average distribution across all types of power generating stations, and assuming electricity

generation is met by a variety of power generating stations operating at levels approaching capacity).

Table 3-3. Annual Net Impacts of Electrification Compared Against Tier 2 Diesel Scenario

Pollutant

Change in Emissions with Electrification


(10%from fossil fuels)



Without

Regenerative

Braking

With

Regenerative

Braking

Without

Regenerative

Braking

With

Regenerative

Braking

NOx (tonnes/year) -3,130 -3,130 -3,050 -3,060

NOx (% change) -99% -99% -96% -97%

CO (tonnes/year) -1,030 -1,030 -988 -994

CO (% change) -98% -98% -94% -95%

VOC (tonnes/year) -294 -294 -293 -293

VOC (% change) -99.8% -99.8% -99.5% -99.5%

PM2.5 (tonnes/year) -107 -107 -105 -105

PM2.5 (% change) -99% -99% -97% -97%

CO2e (tonnes/year) -294,000 -297,000 -235,000 -243,000

CO2e (% change) -90% -91% -72% -74%

Table 3-4. Annual Net Impacts of Electrification Compared Against Tier 4 Diesel Scenario

Pollutant

Change in Emissions With Electrification





Without

Regenerative

Braking

With

Regenerative

Braking

Without

Regenerative

Braking

With

Regenerative

Braking

NOx (tonnes/year) -616 -620 -543 -553

NOx (% change) -94% -94% -83% -84%

CO (tonnes/year) -1,030 -1,030 -988 -994

CO (% change) -98% -98% -94% -95%

VOC (tonnes/year) -87 -87 -86 -286

VOC (% change) -99% -99% -98% -98%

PM2.5 (tonnes/year) -15 -15 -13 -13

PM2.5 (% change) -93% -94% -80% -82%

CO2e (tonnes/year) -294,000 -297,000 -235,000 -243,000

CO2e (% change) -90% -91% -72% -74%

Figure 3-1. Summary of Annual NOx Emissions



Figure 3-2. Summary of Annual CO Emissions

Tie

r 2

Tier

4

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Diesel Average Electricity Production Capacity Electricity Production

NO

x Em

issi

on

s (t

on

ne

s/ye

ar)

Emission Scenario

Without Regenerative Braking With Regenerative Braking

Tier

2

Tier

4

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


CO

Em

issi

on

s (t

on

ne

s/ye

ar)

Emission Scenario




Figure 3-3. Summary of Annual VOC Emissions

Figure 3-4. Summary of Annual PM2.5 Emissions

Tie

r 2

Tie

r 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


VO

C E

mis

sio

ns

(to

nn

es/

year

)

Emission Scenario


Tie

r 2

Tie

r 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


PM

2.5

Emis

sio

ns

(to

nn

es/

year

)

Emission Scenario




Figure 3-5. Summary of Annual CO2e Emissions

It should first off be noted that the four total electrification emission scenarios show a net benefit from

electrification (reduction in emissions). Even for the case when 28% of electricity is generated from gas

power plants, most pollutants show a substantial decrease in emissions after electrification. In general,

this is because the majority of the electricity is produced by power plants that have minimal impact on

air quality (nuclear and hydroelectric). The predicted benefits of electrification with respect to air

quality and climate change are greatest when more of the electricity is assumed to be generated

through nuclear or hydroelectric power plants.

Implications

To get an indication of the implications of the emission changes for local air quality at locations adjacent

to the rail corridors, previous air quality modelling studies undertaken by Metrolinx were examined

(Stouffville Corridor Rail Service Expansion Air Quality Assessment, May 2014; Georgetown South & Air

Rail Link Air quality Impact Assessment – Enhanced Analysis, February 2011). These studies indicated

that, with Tier 2 diesel locomotives, GO Transit’s contribution to air pollutant levels adjacent to the

corridors is relatively small compared to background air pollutant levels for most pollutants (less than

10% in most cases). The most significant exception is nitrogen dioxide (NO2), for which GO Transit’s

contribution to maximum short-term concentrations could be on the order of 60% at locations adjacent

to the right-of-way (although the short-term levels remain within provincial criteria for NO2). Thus, it is

anticipated that the replacement of diesel locomotives with electric locomotives will not significantly

change the baseline air quality levels, with the possible exception of nitrogen dioxide at locations in

Tie

r 2

Tier

4

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000


CO

2e

Em

issi

on

s (t

on

ne

s/ye

ar)

Emission Scenario




close proximity to the busier sections of corridor within the GO Transit network. The baseline air quality

levels were reported separately (GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP Air Quality Baseline Conditions

Report, May 2016), with the data categorized into three broad categories: urban, suburban and rural.

To understand the implications of the emissions changes for regional air quality, the predicted changes

were compared to the total regional emission inventory. Table 3-5 shows the total Ontario emissions

from all sources, mobile sources, and rail transportation sources alongside the predicted change in

emissions associated with the Metrolinx GO Rail Network Electrification. The table shows that the

anticipated emissions changes represent a moderate reduction in overall rail transportation emissions

for the Province Ontario, but only a very small reduction in total emissions for all sources in Ontario.

Table 3-5. Annual Ontario Emissions Compared Against Annual Net Impacts of Electrification

Pollutant Total Ontario

Emissions (tonnes/year)

Total Ontario Mobile Source


Total Ontario Rail

Transportation Source


Change in Emissions with Electrification (tonnes/year)

Average Electricity Production Capacity Electricity

Production

Without Regenerative

Braking

With Regenerative

Braking


Braking

With Regenerative

Braking

Tier 2 Diesel Scenario

NOx 315,693 220,615 20,638 -3,130 -3,130 -3,050 -3,060

CO 1,494,031 1,048,917 2,993 -1,030 -1,030 -988 -994

VOC 391,355 108,205 1,028 -294 -294 -293 -293

PM2.5 304,283 11,923 480 -107 -107 -105 -105

CO2e 167,000,000 56,600,000 1,200,000 -294,000 -297,000 -235,000 -243,000

Tier 4 Diesel Scenario

NOx 315,693 220,615 20,638 -616 -620 -543 -553

CO 1,494,031 1,048,917 2,993 -1,030 -1,030 -988 -994

VOC 391,355 108,205 1,028 -87 -87 -86 -286

PM2.5 304,283 11,923 480 -15 -15 -13 -13

CO2e 167,000,000 56,600,000 1,200,000 -294,000 -297,000 -235,000 -243,000

Note:

Ontario Emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, and PM2.5 are for 2014 (NPRI Air Pollutant Emission Inventory – Online Data Search).

Ontario Emissions of CO2e are for 2012 (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2014; Natural Resources

Canada – Online).

3.2 Construction Impacts

In general, construction activities will involve heavy equipment that generates air pollutants and dust.

Mitigation of construction emissions is normally achieved through diligent implementation of operating

procedures.

The construction activities that are likely to have the biggest impact to air quality are the construction of

the TPS facilities, the installation of OCS support foundation structures, and the replacement and

modifications of bridges. Construction of the TPS facilities will require the sites to be prepared with the



use of a bulldozer, excavator, grader, and haul truck. Installing the OCS support foundation structures

will require the use of augers and excavators to create holes, the removal of excess material by haul

truck, and the filling of holes with cement from a cement truck. Bridge replacement and modification

could also require the use of a bulldozer, excavators, and haul trucks. All these activities can produce

significant dust but it can be minimized by watering or applying other dust suppressants, covering up

stockpiles, reducing travel speeds for heavy vehicles, minimizing haul distances, and efficiently staging

the activities. By-products of combustion (NOx, CO, VOCs, and PM) from trucks or other construction

equipment could also be a concern but the impacts can be minimized by ensuring that any diesel

equipment complies with the latest emission standards (Tier 3 or Tier 4).

After the OCS support structures have been installed, the OCS wire will be run the entire length of the

corridor with use of a work train consisting of a locomotive and three cars or a rail mounted work unit as

well as two large haul trucks. The main emissions from this activity will be the combustion of fuel and

the potential for some dust from transportation, however, these emissions are expected to be modest

relative to the emissions from other locomotives using the corridor. As a result, this activity is expected

to have minimal impact on air quality.

Lastly, safety barriers will also be installed on bridges however the impact on air quality from this

activity is expected to be minimal.

4 Monitoring Activities and Commitments

Electrification will result in the reduction of diesel emissions which have a benefit to local air quality

near the rail corridors. The increased electricity generation will generate some pollutants through the

combustion of fossil fuels, but overall the total air emissions will be lower as a result of the

electrification. As this project will have a net benefit to air quality, post-construction monitoring is not

necessary.

Construction activities will emit by-products of combustion (NOx, CO, VOCs, and PM) from diesel

construction equipment, and dust. Monitoring of these air pollutants is considered unnecessary in the

present case, provided that all equipment complies with the latest emission standards. Construction

activities will also have the potential to generate airborne dust during dry weather. However, as the

construction footprint at any given location will generally be modest in size (the TPS facilities will have a

footprint of several 10s of metres on a side), the time period of significant dust generation potential is

likely to be short at any one location. Monitoring of dust during construction is therefore not

recommended.



5 Summary of Effects and Mitigation Measures

The following table provides a summary of the key project components/activities, potential effects,

mitigation measures, and proposed monitoring activities/commitments to future work associated with

the GO Rail Network Electrification undertaking.

Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Air Quality Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring/Commitments

Project Component Project Activities

Potential Effect Mitigation Measures

Monitoring & Commitments

Operation of electrified GO Trains

N/A Reduction in local air contaminant concentrations

Reduction in regional contaminant and greenhouse gas emissions

None required as the potential effect is beneficial

None required as the potential effect is beneficial

Installation of OCS Excavate soil

Install OCS foundations at an approximate depth of 5m

Erect poles

Install wiring

Tree removals

By-products of combustion emissions

Production of dust emissions

Comply with latest diesel combustion emission standards

Watering

Application of dust suppressants

Covering stockpiles

Reducing travel speeds

Minimizing haul distances

Efficiently staging activities

Monitoring not recommended

Bridges Install bridge barriers

Install OCS attachments

Install flash plates

Raise bridge

Lower tracks




Watering


Covering stockpiles










Construction of Tap and Traction Power Facilities & Gantries

Auger hole

Pour foundation

Attach structure including hardware such as insulators

String conductor

Grade and seed

Construct gantries

Site clearing

Install building foundation

Install prepackaged equipment

Construct building

Grounding and bonding




Watering


Covering stockpiles





Grounding and bonding of TPFs

Excavate the soil to the required depth (approximately 1m)

Install grounding mats, conductors and rods, as per design

Connect the grounding system internally and with adjacent existing grounding system, where required

Backfill the grounding system, as per design

Install the junction boxes and connect grounding conductors, where required




Watering


Covering stockpiles










Construction of access roads for traction power facilities

Site clearing By-products of combustion emissions



Watering


Covering stockpiles





Installation/construction of underground duct banks

Excavate soil via open cut method to install duct banks

Install underground cables (feeders) within duct banks

Connect feeders to main gantry

Backfill/restore road(s), as per design




Watering


Covering stockpiles





Installation/construction of 230kV/55kV/25kV aerial feeder lines

Install pole foundations

Install poles

Install wiring

Minimal emissions expected

N/A N/A



6 Conclusions

Electrification will result in elimination of diesel locomotive exhaust emissions which have both local and

regional beneficial impacts, but also requires increased electricity generation, some of which will come

from power plants operating on fossil fuel, thus adding back in some regional impacts. Overall,

electrification of the GO Rail Network shows a net reduction in total emissions when compared to

diesel-powered trains.

The reduction in diesel exhaust emissions will translate into a reduction in the local levels of air

pollutants at locations adjacent to the rail corridors. The local emissions from diesel combustion for the

trains that will be electrified will be eliminated and therefore local concentrations of these pollutants

will decrease but will not be eliminated completely due to other local sources. In terms of regional air

quality implications, and greenhouse gas emissions, the total Provincial benefit is small, but relative to

GO operations the benefit is significant. Electrification of the GO Rail Network shows a net reduction in

total emissions when compared to diesel-powered trains.

Two existing maintenance facilities (Willowbrook and East Rail Maintenance Facility) will be modified to

accommodate electric GO Trains. No significant changes to emissions or new sources of air emissions

are expected as a result of modifying the existing maintenance facilities to accommodate electric GO

Trains.

Construction activities will involve heavy equipment that generates air pollutants and dust. Mitigation

of construction emissions is normally achieved through diligent implementation of operating procedures

such as watering or applying other dust suppressants, covering up stockpiles, reducing travel speeds for

heavy vehicles, minimizing haul distances, and efficiently staging the activities.



List of References

Gannett Fleming Canada ULC, Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains, January 2016.

National Pollutant Release Inventory, Air Pollutant Emission Inventory – Online Data Search, Accessed

Online on April 12, 2016, at: http://ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/donnees-data/ap/index.cfm?lang=En

Natural Resources Canada, National Energy Use Database, Transportation Sector, Ontario, Table 16: Rail

Transportation Secondary Energy Use and GHG Emissions, accessed online on July 25, 2017 at:

https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/showTable.cfm?type=CP&sector=tran&juris=on

&rn=16&page=0

Ontario Energy Board and IESO, Ontario Energy Report Q4 2015.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Ontario’s Climate Change Update 2014, 2014.

Railway Association of Canada, Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2013.

RWDI, Stouffville Corridor Rail Service Expansion EA, Final Report, Air Quality Assessment, May 2014.

RWDI, Georgetown South & Air Rail Link Air Quality Impact Assessment – Enhanced Analysis, February

2011.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Chapter

3.1, Stationary Gas Turbines, April 2000.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Conversion Factors for Hydrocarbon Emission

Components, July 2010.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Factors for Locomotives, April 2009.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Non-Road

Engine Modeling – Compression-Ignition, July 2010.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air

Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per

Cylinder, May 2008.

APPENDIX A

Figure

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

KT-1

SV-6

LSE-1USRC-1

LSW-8

BR-2

LSE-8LSE-7

LSE-5

LSE-4LSE-3

LSE-2SV-1

SV-2

SV-3

SV-4SV-5

SV-7

BR-12

BR-11

BR-10

BR-9

BR-8

BR-7

BR-6

BR-5

BR-4

BR-3

BR-1

KT-2

LSE-6

LSW-1LSW-2

LSW-3

LSW-4

LSW-5

LSW-6

LSW-7

!

East RailMaintenanceFacility

!

WillowbrookMaintenance

Facility

0 3015

Kilometers ±Air Quality Categories for Study

Area SegmentsDecember, 2016

1150226.00

Legend#* Maintenance Facility

Urban

Suburban

Rural

") Proposed Paralleling Station

") Proposed Switching Station

")Proposed Traction PowerSubstation

A-1

Appendix A - Diesel Train Emission Calculations

Table A-1: Base Emission Factors

Pollutant US EPA Tier 2 Diesel Units US EPA Tier 2 Diesel Nonroad Engine Units US EPA Tier 4 Diesel Units US EPA Tier 4 Diesel Nonroad Engine Units

Locomotive Emission Factors Locomotive Emission Factors

Emission Factors Emission Factors

NOx [1] [2] 5.5 g/bhp-hr 4.8 g/bhp-hr 1.3 g/bhp-hr 0.5 g/bhp-hr

CO [1] 1.5 g/bhp-hr 2.6 g/bhp-hr 1.5 g/bhp-hr 2.6 g/bhp-hr

THC [1] [2] 0.3 g/bhp-hr 1 g/bhp-hr 0.14 g/bhp-hr 0.14 g/bhp-hr

VOC [3] 0.32 g/bhp-hr 1.053 g/bhp-hr 0.147 g/bhp-hr 0.147 g/bhp-hr

PM [1] 0.200 g/bhp-hr 0.150 g/bhp-hr 0.030 g/bhp-hr 0.022 g/bhp-hr

PM2.5 [4] 0.194 g/bhp-hr 0.146 g/bhp-hr 0.029 g/bhp-hr 0.021 g/bhp-hr

CO2e [5] 3022 g/L 3022 g/L 3022 g/L 3022 g/L

CO2e [6] 550 g/bhp-hr 550 g/bhp-hr 550 g/bhp-hr 550 g/bhp-hr

Notes:

[1] Locomotives: Line-Haul Locomotive Emission Standards, Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Litres per Cylinder, 73 Federal Register 126

Nonroad Engines: Nonroad Diesel Enginer Emission Standards >750 hp, Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling - Compression-Ignition, EPA, NR009d, July 2010

[2] The standard for nonroad engines is 4.8 g/bhp-hr for NOx + NMHC. NOx emissions were assumed to be the full 4.8 g/bhp-hr and THC emissions were assumed to be 1 g/bhp-hr which is the Tier 1 standard.

[3] The ratio of VOC/THC is 1.053 (Conversion Factors for Hydrocarbon Emission Components, NR-002d, EPA, July 2010)

[4] The ratio of PM2.5/PM is 0.97 (Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling - Compression-Ignition, EPA, NR009d, July 2010)

[5] Railway Association of Canada, Locomotive Emissions Monitoring Program 2013.

[6] The emission factor of CO2e was converted from units of g/L to g/bhp-hr assuming a fuel consumption of 20.8 bhp-hr/gal (5.49 bhp-hr/L) (EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Factors for Locomotives).

Table A-2: Reference Case

Tier 2 Emissions Standards Tier 4 Emissions Standards

Daily Locomotive Emissions Daily Head End Power Emissions Total Train Emissions Daily Locomotive Emissions Daily Head End Power Emissions Total Train Emissions

Rail Corridor Segment ID SegmentDiesel Train

Frequency

Segment

Distance

Average

Travel SpeedTravel Time

Average

Engine

Power

Locomotive

Energy

Expended Per

Train

Average

Head End

Power

Rating

Head End

Power

Energy

Expended

Per Train

NOx CO VOC PM2.5 CO2e NOx CO VOC PM2.5 CO2e NOx CO VOC PM2.5 CO2e NOx CO VOC PM2.5 CO2e NOx CO VOC PM2.5 CO2e NOx CO VOC PM2.5 CO2e

(trips/day) (km) (km/hr) (hr) (bhp) (bhp-hr) (bhp) (bhp-hr) (tonnes/day) (tonnes/day) (tonnes/day) (tonnes/day) (tonnes/day) (tonnes/day)

Union Station USRC-1 UP Express Union Station to Don Yard Layover 408 2.8 32 0.09 891 77 654 57 0.173 0.047 0.010 0.006 17.3 0.111 0.060 0.024 0.003 12.7 0.284 0.107 0.034 0.009 30.1 0.041 0.047 0.005 0.001 17.3 0.012 0.060 0.003 0.000 12.7 0.053 0.107 0.008 0.001 30.1

Lakeshore West LSW-1 Strachan Avenue to Mimico Station 188 8.2 63 0.13 2526 329 654 85 0.340 0.093 0.020 0.012 34.0 0.077 0.042 0.017 0.002 8.8 0.416 0.134 0.036 0.014 42.8 0.080 0.093 0.009 0.002 34.0 0.008 0.042 0.002 0.000 8.8 0.088 0.134 0.011 0.002 42.8

LSW-2a Mimico Station to Willowbrook Yard 188 1.0 63 0.02 2526 40 654 10 0.041 0.011 0.002 0.001 4.1 0.009 0.005 0.002 0.000 1.1 0.051 0.016 0.004 0.002 5.2 0.010 0.011 0.001 0.000 4.1 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.000 1.1 0.011 0.016 0.001 0.000 5.2

LSW-2b Willowbrook Yard to Long Branch Station 172 3.8 63 0.06 2526 152 654 39 0.144 0.039 0.008 0.005 14.4 0.033 0.018 0.007 0.001 3.7 0.177 0.057 0.015 0.006 18.1 0.034 0.039 0.004 0.001 14.4 0.003 0.018 0.001 0.000 3.7 0.037 0.057 0.005 0.001 18.1

LSW-3 Long Branch Station to Port Credit Station 172 5.2 63 0.08 2526 208 654 54 0.197 0.054 0.011 0.007 19.7 0.045 0.024 0.010 0.001 5.1 0.242 0.078 0.021 0.008 24.8 0.047 0.054 0.005 0.001 19.7 0.005 0.024 0.001 0.000 5.1 0.051 0.078 0.007 0.001 24.8

LSW-4 Port Credit Station to Clarkson Station 172 6.0 63 0.10 2526 240 654 62 0.227 0.062 0.013 0.008 22.7 0.051 0.028 0.011 0.002 5.9 0.279 0.090 0.024 0.010 28.6 0.054 0.062 0.006 0.001 22.7 0.005 0.028 0.002 0.000 5.9 0.059 0.090 0.008 0.001 28.6

LSW-5 Clarkson Station to Oakville Station 172 7.4 63 0.12 2526 296 654 77 0.280 0.076 0.016 0.010 28.0 0.063 0.034 0.014 0.002 7.3 0.344 0.111 0.030 0.012 35.3 0.066 0.076 0.008 0.001 28.0 0.007 0.034 0.002 0.000 7.3 0.073 0.111 0.009 0.002 35.3

LSW-6 Oakville Station to Bronte Station 172 5.3 63 0.08 2526 212 654 55 0.201 0.055 0.012 0.007 20.1 0.045 0.025 0.010 0.001 5.2 0.246 0.079 0.021 0.008 25.3 0.047 0.055 0.005 0.001 20.1 0.005 0.025 0.001 0.000 5.2 0.052 0.079 0.007 0.001 25.3

LSW-7 Bronte Station to Appleby Station 172 5.5 63 0.09 2526 220 654 57 0.208 0.057 0.012 0.007 20.8 0.047 0.026 0.010 0.001 5.4 0.256 0.082 0.022 0.009 26.2 0.049 0.057 0.006 0.001 20.8 0.005 0.026 0.001 0.000 5.4 0.054 0.082 0.007 0.001 26.2

LSW-8 Appleby Station to Burlington Station 172 5.5 63 0.09 2526 220 654 57 0.208 0.057 0.012 0.007 20.8 0.047 0.026 0.010 0.001 5.4 0.256 0.082 0.022 0.009 26.2 0.049 0.057 0.006 0.001 20.8 0.005 0.026 0.001 0.000 5.4 0.054 0.082 0.007 0.001 26.2

Kitchener KT-1 UP Express Spur (at Highway 427) to Malton Station 164 2.1 58 0.04 2654 95 654 24 0.086 0.023 0.005 0.003 8.6 0.019 0.010 0.004 0.001 2.1 0.105 0.034 0.009 0.004 10.7 0.020 0.023 0.002 0.000 8.6 0.002 0.010 0.001 0.000 2.1 0.022 0.034 0.003 0.001 10.7

KT-2 Malton Station to Bramalea Station 164 4.4 39 0.11 1092 123 654 74 0.111 0.030 0.006 0.004 11.1 0.058 0.031 0.013 0.002 6.6 0.169 0.062 0.019 0.006 17.7 0.026 0.030 0.003 0.001 11.1 0.006 0.031 0.002 0.000 6.6 0.032 0.062 0.005 0.001 17.7

Barrie BR-1 Parkdale Junction to Caledonia Station 180 5.2 52 0.10 1883 189 654 66 0.187 0.051 0.011 0.007 18.7 0.057 0.031 0.012 0.002 6.5 0.243 0.082 0.023 0.008 25.2 0.044 0.051 0.005 0.001 18.7 0.006 0.031 0.002 0.000 6.5 0.050 0.082 0.007 0.001 25.2

BR-2 Caledonia Station to Downsview Park Station 180 7.0 52 0.13 1883 254 654 88 0.251 0.069 0.014 0.009 25.1 0.076 0.041 0.017 0.002 8.7 0.328 0.110 0.031 0.011 33.9 0.059 0.069 0.007 0.001 25.1 0.008 0.041 0.002 0.000 8.7 0.067 0.110 0.009 0.002 33.9

BR-3 Downsview Park Station to Rutherford Station 180 9.5 52 0.18 1883 345 654 120 0.341 0.093 0.020 0.012 34.1 0.103 0.056 0.023 0.003 11.8 0.445 0.149 0.042 0.015 46.0 0.081 0.093 0.009 0.002 34.1 0.011 0.056 0.003 0.000 11.8 0.091 0.149 0.012 0.002 46.0

BR-4 Rutherford Station to King City Station 180 9.4 52 0.18 1883 341 654 118 0.338 0.092 0.019 0.012 33.7 0.102 0.055 0.022 0.003 11.7 0.440 0.147 0.042 0.015 45.5 0.080 0.092 0.009 0.002 33.7 0.011 0.055 0.003 0.000 11.7 0.090 0.147 0.012 0.002 45.5

BR-5 King City Station to Bathurst Street 180 6.2 52 0.12 1883 225 654 78 0.223 0.061 0.013 0.008 22.3 0.068 0.037 0.015 0.002 7.7 0.290 0.097 0.028 0.010 30.0 0.053 0.061 0.006 0.001 22.3 0.007 0.037 0.002 0.000 7.7 0.060 0.097 0.008 0.001 30.0

BR-6 Bathurst Street to Aurora Station 180 5.6 52 0.11 1883 203 654 71 0.201 0.055 0.012 0.007 20.1 0.061 0.033 0.013 0.002 7.0 0.262 0.088 0.025 0.009 27.1 0.048 0.055 0.005 0.001 20.1 0.006 0.033 0.002 0.000 7.0 0.054 0.088 0.007 0.001 27.1

BR-7 Aurora Station to East Gwillimbury Station 46 9.0 52 0.17 1883 326 654 113 0.083 0.023 0.005 0.003 8.3 0.025 0.014 0.005 0.001 2.9 0.108 0.036 0.010 0.004 11.1 0.020 0.023 0.002 0.000 8.3 0.003 0.014 0.001 0.000 2.9 0.022 0.036 0.003 0.001 11.1

BR-8 East Gwillimbury Station to Bradford Station 46 9.5 52 0.18 1883 345 654 120 0.087 0.024 0.005 0.003 8.7 0.026 0.014 0.006 0.001 3.0 0.114 0.038 0.011 0.004 11.7 0.021 0.024 0.002 0.000 8.7 0.003 0.014 0.001 0.000 3.0 0.023 0.038 0.003 0.001 11.7

BR-9a Bradford Station to Bradford Layover 46 0.4 85 0.00 2409 11 654 3 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.3 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.4 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.4

BR-9b Bradford Layover to 13th Line 44 8.8 85 0.10 2409 250 654 68 0.060 0.016 0.003 0.002 6.0 0.014 0.008 0.003 0.000 1.6 0.075 0.024 0.007 0.003 7.7 0.014 0.016 0.002 0.000 6.0 0.001 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.6 0.016 0.024 0.002 0.000 7.7

BR-10 13th Line to 6th Line 44 10.4 85 0.12 2409 295 654 80 0.071 0.019 0.004 0.003 7.1 0.017 0.009 0.004 0.001 1.9 0.088 0.029 0.008 0.003 9.1 0.017 0.019 0.002 0.000 7.1 0.002 0.009 0.001 0.000 1.9 0.019 0.029 0.002 0.000 9.1

BR-11 6th Line to Barrie South Station 44 9.2 85 0.11 2409 261 654 71 0.063 0.017 0.004 0.002 6.3 0.015 0.008 0.003 0.000 1.7 0.078 0.025 0.007 0.003 8.0 0.015 0.017 0.002 0.000 6.3 0.002 0.008 0.000 0.000 1.7 0.017 0.025 0.002 0.000 8.0

BR-12 Barrie South Station to Allandale Waterfront Station 44 5.8 32 0.18 942 170 654 118 0.041 0.011 0.002 0.001 4.1 0.025 0.013 0.005 0.001 2.9 0.066 0.025 0.008 0.002 7.0 0.010 0.011 0.001 0.000 4.1 0.003 0.013 0.001 0.000 2.9 0.012 0.025 0.002 0.000 7.0

Stouffville SV-1 Scarborough Junction Agincourt Station 180 7.8 43 0.18 1662 300 654 118 0.297 0.081 0.017 0.010 29.7 0.102 0.055 0.022 0.003 11.7 0.400 0.136 0.039 0.014 41.4 0.070 0.081 0.008 0.002 29.7 0.011 0.055 0.003 0.000 11.7 0.081 0.136 0.011 0.002 41.4

SV-2 Agincourt Station to Milliken Station 180 4.7 43 0.11 1662 181 654 71 0.179 0.049 0.010 0.006 17.9 0.062 0.033 0.014 0.002 7.1 0.241 0.082 0.024 0.008 25.0 0.042 0.049 0.005 0.001 17.9 0.006 0.033 0.002 0.000 7.1 0.049 0.082 0.007 0.001 25.0

SV-3 Milliken Station to Unionville Station 180 3.4 43 0.08 1662 131 654 52 0.130 0.035 0.007 0.005 13.0 0.045 0.024 0.010 0.001 5.1 0.174 0.059 0.017 0.006 18.1 0.031 0.035 0.003 0.001 13.0 0.005 0.024 0.001 0.000 5.1 0.035 0.059 0.005 0.001 18.1

SV-4 Unionville Station to Markham Station 42 5.9 43 0.14 1662 227 654 89 0.052 0.014 0.003 0.002 5.2 0.018 0.010 0.004 0.001 2.1 0.071 0.024 0.007 0.002 7.3 0.012 0.014 0.001 0.000 5.2 0.002 0.010 0.001 0.000 2.1 0.014 0.024 0.002 0.000 7.3

SV-5 Markham Station to Mount Joy Station 42 2.2 43 0.05 1662 85 654 33 0.020 0.005 0.001 0.001 2.0 0.007 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.8 0.026 0.009 0.003 0.001 2.7 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.000 2.0 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.8 0.005 0.009 0.001 0.000 2.7

SV-6 Mount Joy Station to Stouffville Station 16 8.1 43 0.19 1662 312 654 123 0.027 0.007 0.002 0.001 2.7 0.009 0.005 0.002 0.000 1.1 0.037 0.013 0.004 0.001 3.8 0.006 0.007 0.001 0.000 2.7 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.000 1.1 0.007 0.013 0.001 0.000 3.8

SV-7 Stouffville Station to Lincolnville Station 16 3.0 43 0.07 1662 116 654 45 0.010 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.4 0.014 0.005 0.001 0.000 1.4 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.4 0.003 0.005 0.000 0.000 1.4

Lakeshore East LSE-1 Don Yard Layover to Danforth Station 408 5.7 54 0.11 2219 236 654 70 0.530 0.145 0.030 0.019 53.0 0.136 0.074 0.030 0.004 15.6 0.666 0.218 0.060 0.023 68.6 0.125 0.145 0.014 0.003 53.0 0.014 0.074 0.004 0.001 15.6 0.139 0.218 0.018 0.003 68.6

LSE-2 Danforth Station to Scarborough Station 408 5.1 54 0.10 2219 211 654 62 0.474 0.129 0.027 0.017 47.4 0.122 0.066 0.027 0.004 14.0 0.596 0.195 0.054 0.020 61.4 0.112 0.129 0.013 0.003 47.4 0.013 0.066 0.004 0.001 14.0 0.125 0.195 0.016 0.003 61.4

LSE-3 Scarborough Station to Guildwood Station 228 6.5 54 0.12 2219 269 654 79 0.338 0.092 0.019 0.012 33.8 0.087 0.047 0.019 0.003 10.0 0.425 0.139 0.038 0.015 43.7 0.080 0.092 0.009 0.002 33.8 0.009 0.047 0.003 0.000 10.0 0.089 0.139 0.012 0.002 43.7

LSE-4 Guildwood Station to Rouge Hill Station 228 6.7 54 0.13 2219 278 654 82 0.348 0.095 0.020 0.012 34.8 0.090 0.049 0.020 0.003 10.3 0.438 0.143 0.040 0.015 45.1 0.082 0.095 0.009 0.002 34.8 0.009 0.049 0.003 0.000 10.3 0.092 0.143 0.012 0.002 45.1

LSE-5 Rouge Hill Station to Pickering Station 228 6.8 54 0.13 2219 282 654 83 0.353 0.096 0.020 0.012 35.3 0.091 0.049 0.020 0.003 10.4 0.444 0.146 0.040 0.015 45.7 0.084 0.096 0.009 0.002 35.3 0.009 0.049 0.003 0.000 10.4 0.093 0.146 0.012 0.002 45.7

LSE-6 Pickering Station to Ajax Station 228 4.3 54 0.08 2219 178 654 53 0.223 0.061 0.013 0.008 22.3 0.057 0.031 0.013 0.002 6.6 0.281 0.092 0.025 0.010 28.9 0.053 0.061 0.006 0.001 22.3 0.006 0.031 0.002 0.000 6.6 0.059 0.092 0.008 0.001 28.9

LSE-7 Ajax Station to Whitby Station 228 8.3 54 0.15 2219 344 654 101 0.431 0.118 0.025 0.015 43.1 0.111 0.060 0.024 0.003 12.7 0.542 0.178 0.049 0.019 55.8 0.102 0.118 0.012 0.002 43.1 0.012 0.060 0.003 0.000 12.7 0.113 0.178 0.015 0.003 55.8

LSE-8a Whitby Station to East Rail Maintenance Facility 228 2.0 54 0.04 2219 83 654 24 0.104 0.028 0.006 0.004 10.4 0.027 0.014 0.006 0.001 3.1 0.131 0.043 0.012 0.004 13.5 0.025 0.028 0.003 0.001 10.4 0.003 0.014 0.001 0.000 3.1 0.027 0.043 0.004 0.001 13.5

LSE-8b Whitby Station to Oshawa Station 210 2.8 54 0.05 2219 116 654 34 0.134 0.037 0.008 0.005 13.4 0.034 0.019 0.008 0.001 3.9 0.168 0.055 0.015 0.006 17.3 0.032 0.037 0.004 0.001 13.4 0.004 0.019 0.001 0.000 3.9 0.035 0.055 0.005 0.001 17.3

Notes: TOTAL 7.82 2.13 0.45 0.28 782 2.20 1.19 0.48 0.07 252 10.02 3.32 0.93 0.34 1033 1.85 2.13 0.21 0.04 782 0.23 1.19 0.07 0.01 252 2.08 3.32 0.28 0.05 1033

[1] Train speed and engine horsepower were based on average values obtained from trip log data for each rail line. The trip log data used was provided by Metrolinx and recorded the train throttle settings and speed profiles for various local trains travelling in both directions along all rail lines in September, 2015.

Table A-3: Diesel Emissions

Tier 2 Emissions Scenario Tier 4 Emissions Scenario

Weekday Saturday Sunday Holiday Total Weekday Saturday Sunday Holiday Total

100% 60% 55% 55% N/A 100% 60% 55% 55% N/A

Number of days per year 251 52 52 10 365 251 52 52 10 365

NOx (tonnes/day) 1.00E+01 6.01E+00 5.51E+00 5.51E+00 N/A 2.08E+00 1.25E+00 1.14E+00 1.14E+00 N/A

NOx (tonnes/year) 2.51E+03 3.12E+02 2.86E+02 5.51E+01 3.17E+03 5.21E+02 6.48E+01 5.94E+01 1.14E+01 6.57E+02

CO (tonnes/day) 3.32E+00 1.99E+00 1.83E+00 1.83E+00 N/A 3.32E+00 1.99E+00 1.83E+00 1.83E+00 N/A

CO (tonnes/year) 8.34E+02 1.04E+02 9.50E+01 1.83E+01 1.05E+03 8.34E+02 1.04E+02 9.50E+01 1.83E+01 1.05E+03

VOC (tonnes/day) 9.31E-01 5.59E-01 5.12E-01 5.12E-01 N/A 2.77E-01 1.66E-01 1.52E-01 1.52E-01 N/A

VOC (tonnes/year) 2.34E+02 2.90E+01 2.66E+01 5.12E+00 2.94E+02 6.95E+01 8.64E+00 7.92E+00 1.52E+00 8.76E+01

PM2.5 (tonnes/day) 3.42E-01 2.05E-01 1.88E-01 1.88E-01 N/A 5.11E-02 3.07E-02 2.81E-02 2.81E-02 N/A

PM2.5 (tonnes/year) 8.59E+01 1.07E+01 9.79E+00 1.88E+00 1.08E+02 1.28E+01 1.60E+00 1.46E+00 2.81E-01 1.62E+01

CO2e (tonnes/day) 1.03E+03 6.20E+02 5.68E+02 5.68E+02 N/A 1.03E+03 6.20E+02 5.68E+02 5.68E+02 N/A

CO2e (tonnes/year) 2.59E+05 3.22E+04 2.96E+04 5.68E+03 3.27E+05 2.59E+05 3.22E+04 2.96E+04 5.68E+03 3.27E+05

Weighting (% of weekday train

volume)

Data Item

Appendix A - Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX B

Appendix B - Electric Train Emission Calculations

Table B-1: 2015 Ontario Electricity Output

Fuel TypeElectricity Output

(MWh)

Nuclear 92,255,822

Hydroelectric 36,361,477

Gas 15,366,131

Biofuel 445,778

Solar 254,401

Wind 8,982,319

TOTAL 153,665,928

Source: Ontario Energy Board and IESO, Ontario Energy Report Q4 2015.

Table B-2: 2015 Emissions from the Ontario Electricity Sector

PollutantEmissions

(tonnes/year)

NOx 8,877

PM2.5 249

CO2e 7,130,000

Source: Ontario Energy Board and IESO, Ontario Energy Report Q4 2015.

Table B-3: Emission Factors For Gas Electricity Generation

Pollutant

Emission Factor

for Average

Electricity

Production

(tonnes/MWh)

Emission Factor

for Capacity

Electricity

Production

(tonnes/MWh)

NOx [1] 5.78E-05 1.62E-04

CO [2] 3.17E-05 8.88E-05

VOC [2] 8.13E-07 2.28E-06

PM2.5 [1] 1.62E-06 4.54E-06

CO2e [1] 4.64E-02 1.30E-01

Notes:

[1] Emission factor for average electricity production assumes that all emissions in Table 2 are from the total electricity production in Table 1.

Emission factor for capacity electricity production assumes that 28% of electricity production is from Gas and the remainder is from renewable sources.

[2] Calculated based on emission factors from uncontrolled stationary gas turbines (U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 3.1).

The emission factor of 0.0021 lb/MMBtu fuel input was converted to tonnes/MWh electricity output assuming a turbine efficiency of 40%.

This efficiency is at the high end for simple cycle turbines and at the low end for combined cycle turbines and thus is expected to be a reasonable average for gas power plants.

Table B-4: Weekday Electricity Consumption for Electrification of Trains

Scenario

Weekday

Electricity

Consumption

(MWh/day)


Braking2227

With Regenerative

Braking2032

Source: Gannett Fleming, Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains, January 2016.

Table B-5: Weekday Emissions

Without

Regenerative

Braking

With

Regenerative

Braking

Without

Regenerative

Braking

With

Regenerative

Braking

NOx 1.29E-01 1.17E-01 3.60E-01 3.29E-01

CO 7.07E-02 6.45E-02 1.98E-01 1.81E-01

VOC 1.81E-03 1.65E-03 5.07E-03 4.62E-03

PM2.5 3.61E-03 3.29E-03 1.01E-02 9.23E-03

CO2e 1.03E+02 9.43E+01 2.89E+02 2.64E+02

Pollutant

Total Emissions for Average

Electricity Production

(tonnes/weekday)

Total Emissions for Capacity

Electricity Production

(tonnes/weekday)

Table B-6: Electricification Emissions

Data Item Weekday Saturday Sunday Holiday Total

Weighting (% of weekday

train volume)100% 60% 55% 55% N/A

Number of days per year 251 52 52 10 365

NOx (tonnes/day) 1.29E-01 7.72E-02 7.08E-02 7.08E-02 N/A

NOx (tonnes/year) 3.23E+01 4.01E+00 3.68E+00 7.08E-01 4.07E+01

CO (tonnes/day) 7.07E-02 4.24E-02 3.89E-02 3.89E-02 N/A

CO (tonnes/year) 1.77E+01 2.20E+00 2.02E+00 3.89E-01 2.23E+01

VOC (tonnes/day) 1.81E-03 1.09E-03 9.95E-04 9.95E-04 N/A

VOC (tonnes/year) 4.54E-01 5.65E-02 5.18E-02 9.95E-03 5.72E-01

PM2.5 (tonnes/day) 3.61E-03 2.17E-03 1.99E-03 1.99E-03 N/A

PM2.5 (tonnes/year) 9.06E-01 1.13E-01 1.03E-01 1.99E-02 1.14E+00

CO2e (tonnes/day) 1.03E+02 6.20E+01 5.68E+01 5.68E+01 N/A

CO2e (tonnes/year) 2.59E+04 3.22E+03 2.96E+03 5.68E+02 3.27E+04


NOx (tonnes/year) 2.95E+01 3.66E+00 3.36E+00 6.46E-01 3.71E+01




VOC (tonnes/year) 4.14E-01 5.15E-02 4.72E-02 9.08E-03 5.22E-01


PM2.5 (tonnes/year) 8.27E-01 1.03E-01 9.42E-02 1.81E-02 1.04E+00




NOx (tonnes/year) 9.04E+01 1.12E+01 1.03E+01 1.98E+00 1.14E+02


CO (tonnes/year) 4.97E+01 6.17E+00 5.66E+00 1.09E+00 6.26E+01


VOC (tonnes/year) 1.27E+00 1.58E-01 1.45E-01 2.79E-02 1.60E+00


PM2.5 (tonnes/year) 2.54E+00 3.15E-01 2.89E-01 5.56E-02 3.20E+00




NOx (tonnes/year) 8.25E+01 1.03E+01 9.40E+00 1.81E+00 1.04E+02




VOC (tonnes/year) 1.16E+00 1.44E-01 1.32E-01 2.54E-02 1.46E+00


PM2.5 (tonnes/year) 2.32E+00 2.88E-01 2.64E-01 5.07E-02 2.92E+00



Emissions for Capacity Electricity Production (28% from fossil fuels) - Without Regenerative Braking

Emissions for Capacity Electricity Production (28% from fossil fuels) - With Regenerative Braking

Emissions for Average Electricity Production (10% from fossil fuels) - Without Regenerative Braking

Emissions for Average Electricity Production (10% from fossil fuels) - With Regenerative Braking

APPENDIX C

Review of Parsons Proposal to Upgrade Track Circuits

Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 1/25/16 i | P a g e

Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains

Submitted to:

Submittal Date Here June XX, XXXX

Submitted by:

GF Project No.

060277/060070

Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 1/25/16 Rev. 0.1 i | P a g e

METROLINX GO RAIL ELECTRIFICATION

Quality Assurance

Document Release Form

Name of Firm: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC

Document Name: Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains

Submittal Date: January 25, 2016

Discipline: Traction Power …

Prepared By: Gordon Yu Date: January 25, 2016

Reviewed By: Ted Bandy Date: January 25, 2016

Approved By: Andrew Gillespie Date: January 25, 2016

Project Manager

The above electronic signatures indicate that the named document is controlled by GF Canada ULC, and

has been:

1. Prepared by qualified staff in accordance with generally accepted professional practice. 2. Checked for completeness and accuracy by the appointed discipline reviewers and that the

discipline reviewers did not perform the original work. 3. Reviewed and resolved compatibility interfaces and potential conflicts among the involved

disciplines. 4. Updated to address previously agreed-to reviewer comments, including any remaining

comments from previous internal or external reviews. 5. Reviewed for conformance to scope and other statutory and regulatory requirements. 6. Determined suitable for submittal by the Project Manager.

Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 1/25/16 Rev. 0.1 ii | P a g e

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Date Comments

0.1 January 25, 2016 Initial release


Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 1/25/16 Rev. 0.1 iii | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2 INTRODUCTION 1

2.1 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 1

3 CALCULATION OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION RATES 2

4 CALCULATION OF WEEKDAY ENERGY CONSUMPTIONS 2

5 CALCULATION OF ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTIONS 3


Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 1/25/16 Rev. 0.1 1 | P a g e

1 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide estimated annual energy consumptions by electric trains for

emission calculations. The extent of electrification for this report includes the following lines:

Lakeshore West

Lakeshore East

Kitchener

UPX

Barrie

Stoufville

The calculations are based on the “Mockup Schedule for Consultants” provided by GO Transit. This

schedule has a nominal headway of 15-minute throughout the weekday. The results are summarized as

follows:

If regenerative braking is not utilized, the annual energy consumption is estimated to be

704,465 MWh.

If regenerative braking is utilized, the annual energy consumption is estimated to be 642,846

MWh.

2 Introduction While a traction power system load flow study is being implemented, it is still at an early stage of model

preparation the modeling effort. Before new simulation results are available, this report provides an

estimation of the annual energy consumptions for the planned electrification.

2.1 List of Reference Documents This report makes reference to the following documents:

[1]. GO Electrification Study Final Report, December 2010; prepared by Delcan/Arup JV.

[2]. Traction Power System Modeling and Simulations of the Metrolinx Airport Rail Link, Lakeshore

Lines and Kitchener Line Electrification Systems – Final Report, December 28, 2012; prepared by

LTK.

[3]. RER Mockup Schedule for Consultants (Excel workbook dated 07/22/2015, as furnished by GO

Transit).



3 Calculation of Energy Consumption Rates The rate of energy consumption, in kWh per ton-mile, is based on the 2012 electrification study report

[Reference [2]]. The train service levels for the 2012 electrification study report were based the

Reference Case (Reference [1]).

The 2012 Electrification Study Report (Reference [2]) included Lakeshore Lines, the Kitchener Line and

Union Pearson Airport Express (UPX). It contained ton-miles and weekday energy consumptions in the

studied territory, which are listed in Appendices J and N of the referenced report. The consumption

rates (kWh per ton-mile) are calculated from these results and are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. 2012 Electrification Study Report - Energy Consumption Rates

Regenerative Braking Energy Consumption

(kWh) Train Movement

(Ton-miles)

Energy Consumption Rate

kWh / (Ton-mile)

Off 925,804 9,171,532 0.10095

On 844,837 9,171,532 0.09212

4 Calculation of Weekday Energy Consumptions The weekday train movements and ton-miles for electric trains based on the Mockup Schedule [3] are

calculated. Utilizing the energy consumption rates obtained from the 2012 electrification study report

[2], the weekday energy consumptions are calculated. Diesel trains are excluded from the calculations.

The calculations are based on assumed train parameters listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Assumed Electric Train Parameters

Train Consists Effective AW1 Mass (Tons) Effective AW0 Mass (Tons)

12 Twindexx Vario EMU cars 946 840

1 ALP-46A + 12 bi-level coaches 964 803

3 Silverliner V EMU cars 268 239

Notes - The 3-car EMU trains are for the UPX services. Effective masses include rotational masses.

For revenue service trains, effective AW1 masses are used. For non-revenue trains, effective AW0

masses are used.

If regenerative braking is not utilized, the calculations are shown in Table 3 below.



Table 3. Weekday Electric Train Movements and Energy Consumptions (Without Regenerative Braking)

Type of Trains Number of Train

Movements Subtotal Ton-Miles

Energy Consumption MWh

Revenue Service Trains 931 20,592,024 2,079

Non-Revenue Trains 174 1,470,428 148

Total 1,105 22,062,452 2,227

If regenerative braking is utilized, the calculations are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Weekday Electric Train Movements and Energy Consumptions (With Regenerative Braking)

Type of Trains Number of Train

Movements Subtotal Ton-Miles

Energy Consumption MWh

Revenue Service Trains 931 20,592,024 1,897

Non-Revenue Trains 174 1,470,428 135

Total 1,105 22,062,452 2,032

5 Calculation of Annual Energy Consumptions Based on the weekday energy consumption presented above, the annual energy consumptions are

calculated.

If regenerative braking is not utilized, the annual energy consumption estimation is shown in Table 5

below.

Table 5. Annual Energy Consumption Estimation (Without Regenerative Braking)


Weighting (% of weekday energy consumption)

100% 60% 55% 55% N/A

Daily energy consumption (MWh/day)

2,227 1,336 1,225 1,225 N/A


Subtotal (MWh) 559,028 69,489 63,698 12,250 704,465

Note - Saturday and Sunday energy consumptions are calculated based on typical train volume differences between weekday and weekends for commuter railroads.



If regenerative braking is utilized, the annual energy consumption estimation is shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Annual Energy Consumption Estimation (With Regenerative Braking)


Weighting (% of weekday energy consumption)

100% 60% 55% 55% N/A

Daily energy consumption (MWh/day)

2,032 1,219 1,118 1,118 N/A


Subtotal (MWh) 510,131 63,411 58,126 11,178 642,846

Date post:	15-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times