View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
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).
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 2 | P a g e
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 3 | P a g e
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 4 | P a g e
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 5 | P a g e
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)
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 6 | P a g e
Figure 1-3. GO Rail Network Electrification TPAP Study Area
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 7 | P a g e
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 8 | P a g e
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 9 | P a g e
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 10 | P a g e
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 11 | P a g e
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 12 | P a g e
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:
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 13 | P a g e
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 14 | P a g e
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 15 | P a g e
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
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 (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
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 (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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 16 | P a g e
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
Diesel Average Electricity Production Capacity Electricity Production
CO
Em
issi
on
s (t
on
ne
s/ye
ar)
Emission Scenario
Without Regenerative Braking With Regenerative Braking
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 17 | P a g e
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
Diesel Average Electricity Production Capacity Electricity Production
VO
C E
mis
sio
ns
(to
nn
es/
year
)
Emission Scenario
Without Regenerative Braking With Regenerative Braking
Tie
r 2
Tie
r 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Diesel Average Electricity Production Capacity Electricity Production
PM
2.5
Emis
sio
ns
(to
nn
es/
year
)
Emission Scenario
Without Regenerative Braking With Regenerative Braking
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 18 | P a g e
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
Diesel Average Electricity Production Capacity Electricity Production
CO
2e
Em
issi
on
s (t
on
ne
s/ye
ar)
Emission Scenario
Without Regenerative Braking With Regenerative Braking
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 19 | P a g e
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
Emissions (tonnes/year)
Total Ontario Rail
Transportation Source
Emissions (tonnes/year)
Change in Emissions with Electrification (tonnes/year)
Average Electricity Production Capacity Electricity
Production
Without Regenerative
Braking
With Regenerative
Braking
Without Regenerative
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 20 | P a g e
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 21 | P a g e
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
By-products of combustion emissions
Production of dust emissions
Comply with latest diesel combustion emission standards
Watering
Application of dust suppressants
Covering stockpiles
Monitoring not recommended
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 22 | P a g e
Project Component Project Activities
Potential Effect Mitigation Measures
Monitoring & Commitments
Reducing travel speeds
Minimizing haul distances
Efficiently staging activities
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
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
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
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
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 23 | P a g e
Project Component Project Activities
Potential Effect Mitigation Measures
Monitoring & Commitments
Construction of access roads for traction power facilities
Site clearing 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
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
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
Installation/construction of 230kV/55kV/25kV aerial feeder lines
Install pole foundations
Install poles
Install wiring
Minimal emissions expected
N/A N/A
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 24 | P a g e
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.
GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION TPAP FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared By: RWDI AIR Inc. 08/29/17 Rev. 6.0 25 | P a g e
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§or=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)
Without Regenerative
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/day) 1.17E-01 7.04E-02 6.46E-02 6.46E-02 N/A
NOx (tonnes/year) 2.95E+01 3.66E+00 3.36E+00 6.46E-01 3.71E+01
CO (tonnes/day) 6.45E-02 3.87E-02 3.55E-02 3.55E-02 N/A
CO (tonnes/year) 1.62E+01 2.01E+00 1.84E+00 3.55E-01 2.04E+01
VOC (tonnes/day) 1.65E-03 9.91E-04 9.08E-04 9.08E-04 N/A
VOC (tonnes/year) 4.14E-01 5.15E-02 4.72E-02 9.08E-03 5.22E-01
PM2.5 (tonnes/day) 3.29E-03 1.98E-03 1.81E-03 1.81E-03 N/A
PM2.5 (tonnes/year) 8.27E-01 1.03E-01 9.42E-02 1.81E-02 1.04E+00
CO2e (tonnes/day) 9.43E+01 5.66E+01 5.19E+01 5.19E+01 N/A
CO2e (tonnes/year) 2.37E+04 2.94E+03 2.70E+03 5.19E+02 2.98E+04
NOx (tonnes/day) 3.60E-01 2.16E-01 1.98E-01 1.98E-01 N/A
NOx (tonnes/year) 9.04E+01 1.12E+01 1.03E+01 1.98E+00 1.14E+02
CO (tonnes/day) 1.98E-01 1.19E-01 1.09E-01 1.09E-01 N/A
CO (tonnes/year) 4.97E+01 6.17E+00 5.66E+00 1.09E+00 6.26E+01
VOC (tonnes/day) 5.07E-03 3.04E-03 2.79E-03 2.79E-03 N/A
VOC (tonnes/year) 1.27E+00 1.58E-01 1.45E-01 2.79E-02 1.60E+00
PM2.5 (tonnes/day) 1.01E-02 6.07E-03 5.56E-03 5.56E-03 N/A
PM2.5 (tonnes/year) 2.54E+00 3.15E-01 2.89E-01 5.56E-02 3.20E+00
CO2e (tonnes/day) 2.89E+02 1.74E+02 1.59E+02 1.59E+02 N/A
CO2e (tonnes/year) 7.26E+04 9.03E+03 8.28E+03 1.59E+03 9.15E+04
NOx (tonnes/day) 3.29E-01 1.97E-01 1.81E-01 1.81E-01 N/A
NOx (tonnes/year) 8.25E+01 1.03E+01 9.40E+00 1.81E+00 1.04E+02
CO (tonnes/day) 1.81E-01 1.08E-01 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 N/A
CO (tonnes/year) 4.53E+01 5.63E+00 5.16E+00 9.93E-01 5.71E+01
VOC (tonnes/day) 4.62E-03 2.77E-03 2.54E-03 2.54E-03 N/A
VOC (tonnes/year) 1.16E+00 1.44E-01 1.32E-01 2.54E-02 1.46E+00
PM2.5 (tonnes/day) 9.23E-03 5.54E-03 5.07E-03 5.07E-03 N/A
PM2.5 (tonnes/year) 2.32E+00 2.88E-01 2.64E-01 5.07E-02 2.92E+00
CO2e (tonnes/day) 2.64E+02 1.58E+02 1.45E+02 1.45E+02 N/A
CO2e (tonnes/year) 6.63E+04 8.24E+03 7.55E+03 1.45E+03 8.35E+04
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
Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains
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
Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains
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).
Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains
Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 1/25/16 Rev. 0.1 2 | P a g e
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.
Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains
Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 1/25/16 Rev. 0.1 3 | P a g e
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)
Data Item Weekday Saturday Sunday Holiday Total
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
Number of days per year 251 52 52 10 365
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.
Estimation of Annual Energy Consumption by Electric Trains
Prepared By: Gannett Fleming Canada ULC 1/25/16 Rev. 0.1 4 | P a g e
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)
Data Item Weekday Saturday Sunday Holiday Total
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
Number of days per year 251 52 52 10 365
Subtotal (MWh) 510,131 63,411 58,126 11,178 642,846
Recommended