CN’s Milton Intermodal Terminal: The Wrong Yard in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS CN’s Milton Intermodal Terminal: The Wrong Yard in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT MANY RAIL/TRUCK INTERMODAL TERMINALS, SUCH AS THE ONE CN’S PROPOSING FOR MILTON, MAY START SMALL, BUT THEY INEVITABLY GET MUCH LARGER. Please read the June 11, 2018 press release first: here Rail-based intermodal freight is a modern, innovative and environmentally superior form of transportation – but not when it is used as a means to build a company’s real estate profits at the expense of a community, its residents and their visionary official plan. CN’s proposed Milton terminal fits this category to a T, despite what the railway says publicly. While the community has been promised that this truck-to-rail terminal will only serve four Halifax-Chicago freight trains, this is just a foot in the door. Unstated is the fact that CN’s Brampton Intermodal Terminal is a poorly designed and poorly located holdover from the 1970s that no longer fully meets its operating needs. On the other hand, it would yield a real estate bonanza if it could be replaced by a more efficient terminal elsewhere – such as Milton. A question that must be asked is why CN has acquired 405 hectares for its Milton terminal when it says it only requires 162. That massive cushion of extra land could easily swallow all of the current Brampton intermodal operation, which sits on 81 hectares of valuable real estate that has rising redevelopment potential. As well as violating the land use planning objectives of the Town of Milton and Halton Region, an intermodal terminal on the site CN has assembled will ultimately fail to even meet its own objectives, if it intends to be an efficient and shipper-responsive rail service provider. From a railway operating perspective, the Milton site works reasonably well. The extra-long intermodal trains of today would smoothly enter and depart this yard, which is not the case at the current CN Brampton terminal. It is a cramped, stub-ended yard that cannot provide for easy train access or container loading and unloading. And it can’t be expanded. But CN’s Milton site is badly flawed for another and more serious reason. Ideally, new intermodal terminals must be built beyond the road congestion generated by the large urban regions they serve, allowing the trucks carrying the containers to move in and back out of the core as easily as possible. Putting a new terminal this close to the worst of the region’s congestion on a frequently-gridlocked highway corridor is doomed to failure. CN is avoiding the fact that it actually requires two intermodal terminals, one on either side of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. One should be built just east of Oshawa – which it has investigated – adjacent to the 401, close to the 407 and alongside CP’s Toronto-Montreal main line, where it could be shared advantageously by the two railways. CN’s western terminal should be built farther west on its main line, close to the junction of the 401 and 403 near Woodstock, on land zoned for industrial use. This has been recommended in a soon-to-be-released report on improved rail service in Southwestern Ontario. Also weighing against the proposed CN Milton terminal is its impact on local road congestion and costs. While it would be close to the 401 and 407, it will generate heavy truck traffic that will inflict substantial damage on the local roads leading to those main highways. The cost will come out of the citizens’ taxes. Furthermore, emissions and noise from these terminals have become major issues in many other locations. An intermodal terminal project in Los Angeles was rejected recently under the strict requirements the state and local public agencies are now applying to these operations. CN’s plan falls far short of meeting these California environmental standards or those of various other public agencies across North America. In short, CN has either not done its homework or is not telling Milton residents the real impacts of its proposed terminal and the alternatives available. A full and transparent environmental assessment that addresses all these issues is an absolute necessity before it proceeds. Greg Gormick is a nationally-known rail consultant and government policy advisor on transportation issues. In 1989-1991, he was CN’s assistant manager of intermodal research. From 1998 to 2001, he advised CN on strategic communications, including its first attempt to build the Milton Intermodal Terminal. HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Environ Author Manuscript Health. Author Author Manuscript manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 30. Published in final edited form as: J Environ Health. 2014 September ; 77(2): 8–17. Experiences of a Rail Yard Community: Life Is Hard Rhonda Spencer-Hwang, MPH, DrPH, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University Susanne Montgomery, PhD, School of Behavioral Health, Loma Linda University Molly Dougherty, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University Johanny Valladares, MBA, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University Sany Rangel, MA, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University Peter Gleason, PhD, and School of Public Health, Loma Linda University Sam Soret, MPH, PhD School of Public Health, Loma Linda University Abstract Community groups and local air pollution control agencies have identified the San Bernardino Railyard (SBR) as a significant public health and environmental justice issue. In response, the authors conducted a comprehensive study with community members living in close proximity to the rail yard. The purpose of this article is to share the community's perceptions about the rail yard and ideas on sustainable change. A qualitative study using key informant interviews and focus group discussions was conducted and resulted in four emerging themes. Themes emerged as follows: “health as an unattainable value,” “air quality challenges,” “rail yard pros and cons,” and “violence and unemployment ripple effect.” Community participants expressed concern for poor air quality, but other challenges took priority. The authors' findings suggest that future mitigation work to reduce air pollution exposure should not only focus on reducing risk from air pollution but address significant cooccurring community challenges. A “Health in All Policies” approach is warranted in addressing impacted communities in close proximity to the goods movement industry. Introduction The transportation of goods can both promote and adversely impact health. Goods movement activities can promote health, for example, by enabling access to employment Corresponding Author: Rhonda Spencer-Hwang, Assistant Professor, Loma Linda University School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health and Geoinformatics Sciences, Nichol Hall, Room 1201, Loma Linda, CA 92354. [email protected]. Spencer-Hwang et al. Page 2 and better services. Transportation of goods, however, can also degrade quality of life and Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript be health damaging because of various environmental and societal impacts such as air pollution, climate change, injuries, noise, landscape disruption, loss of sense of community, stress, and anxiety (Mindell, Watkins, & Cohen, 2011). Environmental health scientists are beginning to elucidate the linkages between the air pollution from international trade and goods movement and health (Hricko, 2006, 2008). Mounting research indicates that persons living near transportation hubs and corridors are exposed to higher levels of airborne pollutants, including diesel exhaust and other emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has determined that diesel exhaust is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation (National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, 2009).” Health impacts from the air pollution associated with goods movement include respiratory illnesses, increased premature death, risk of heart disease, cancer risk, adverse birth outcomes, effects on the immune system, multiple respiratory effects, and neurotoxicity (Attfield et al., 2012; Brauer et al., 2007; California Air Resources Board [CARB], 2005; Chen, Schreier, Strunk, & Brauer, 2008; Edwards, Walters, & Griffiths, 1994; Hoffmann et al., 2009; Jerrett et al., 2005; Mack, 2004; Salam, Islam, & Gilliland, 2008; Silverman et al., 2012). Furthermore, the strengths of associations described for traffic-related exposures are directly related to the proximity to major roadways (Margolis et al., 2009; Newcomb & Li, 2008). Children are especially vulnerable and those living near freeways have shown to have substantial deficits in lung function and development as well as asthma exacerbations (Gauderman et al., 2007; Gruzieva et al., 2013; Perez et al., 2009; Schultz et al., 2012; Spira-Cohen, Chen, Kendall, Lall, & Thurston, 2011); others have linked traffic exposure to increased risk of low birth weight and premature birth (Brauer et al., 2008). Growing emissions from trucks and trains in regions that contain major segments of the goods movement network can add to existing air quality problems and impact specific local communities. In the city of San Bernardino, California, one such community is located in close proximity to a major freight rail yard. We identified this as the San Bernardino Railyard (SBR). The SBR is one of the busiest facilities of its kind in California and a major inland hub for goods shipped from the ports of Los Angeles (Figure 1). The city of San Bernardino and the railroads have been interlinked throughout the nearly 200-year history of the city, with railroad operations changing to predominately freight-based operations since the 1990s. With operations running 24/7, the SBR is a crucial hub for freight and shipping for the entire U.S. Given the nature and intensity of the work performed at the SBR, it is not unrealistic to think air pollution levels in the immediately surrounding areas would be higher relative to other locations within the city.