News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 1.3K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 307     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 858     0 

407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

mdrejhon said:
If CP orders an assessment, are they required to make it public?
Click to expand...
No. If they do it, don't like the results, they can bury it.

Now, if it went to any government agency, then it can be obtained (assuming there isn't a blatant risk to human health by not doing anything).

Though depends what kind of assessment really ... for those that require public participation for example.
 
mdrejhon said:
Ok, so they can bury it from the public while they own the land....
...But are they obligated to dig it up to reveal to a buyer?
Click to expand...

Outside of single family home purchases, no real estate trades hands without an environmental assessment.....any buyer of this land that does not insist on one is a fool and deserves any liability that accrues to them.
 
mdrejhon said:
...But are they obligated to dig it up to reveal to a buyer?
Click to expand...
What kind of assessment? A building assessment? A site assessment? A noise assessment?

Generally, yes. It's the buyer's responsibility normally to do a site assessment. And that's not public. Though you'll be surprised what you find when you start looking at drilling records (which are public) on the MOE website.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Environmental site assessment, to be exact. See the Ontario government's page on brownfields.
Click to expand...
That link is specifc to brownfield sites....but even the buyer of, for example, an apartment building will get, at a minimum, a Phase I ESA.

Even if the buyer is confident that there is no issue with his newly acquired 50 year old residential building...when he goes to finance it he will find himself calling a consultant in a hurry.
 
A local residents association weighs in. Letter to the editor here.

Consult community in freight train plans

Thornhill Liberal
Re: York to fight pitch to reroute risky freight trains here, April 14.

It has come to the attention of the Grandview Area Residents Association (GARA) that consideration is being given by Metrolinx and GO Transit to possibly improving passenger traffic on the Milton and Kitchener lines.

Information on the planning process can be found in Report ENG-020-15 “The Missing Link,” as well as the article in The Liberal.

One proposal for achieving this improved service would involve construction of two-way trackage to widen the Milton and Kitchener lines. There is some suggestion in the report that widening would have very severe and serious consequences (not specified in detail) and hence this alternative has been rejected out of hand.

The other recommended model is the construction of a new rail corridor linking the CN bypass line at Bramalea with the CP through route near the Milton-Mississauga border — i.e., the so-called missing link.

In order to make this latter solution viable, additional construction would be required (upgrades and new connections).

The objective in both instances appears to be the reduction or removal of freight train traffic on the Metrolinx tracks in question, while increasing the freight traffic on alternate routes such as the one running through Thornhill and other York Region cities.

Although GARA is in full support of enhancing GO Transit service for commuters, it does not support a solution which would increase the frequency of freight train traffic in our area.

Thornhill, and other York communities that would be affected, are mature residential neighbourhoods which already suffer the effects of rail traffic at the current level.

It appears that there has been no consultation with community groups to date on this proposal and, indeed, the report does not even consider the negative consequences of increased freight traffic in the affected regions.

To illustrate, increased frequency of freight train traffic will generate increased noise, dust, vibration, increased maintenance on rails and bridges, perhaps the need to expand berms, as well as the risk of an increase in accidents and spills of noxious and/or hazardous materials.

This is of particular concern, as our local elementary school is located less than a block from the CN track.

Additionally, any further construction will bring with it a host of undesirable effects on the community.

We respectfully request that these concerns be taken into consideration in any further planning.

Sandra W. Pyke
Member of GRANDVIEW AREA RESIDENTS ASSOC. Executive, Thornhill
Click to expand...
 
And the funny thing is they must realize they have no real reason behind it - existing freight routes run by many more people than the missing link does. Moving freight to the CN bypass would reduce risk to the general population.
 
innsertnamehere said:
And the funny thing is they must realize they have no real reason behind it - existing freight routes run by many more people than the missing link does. Moving freight to the CN bypass would reduce risk to the general population.
Click to expand...
And in a trenched corridor with large population buffer zones for most of its route -- the 407 to the north and the hydro corridor to the south. A disaster here would be far less devastating than the Brampton sub.

It definitely ends up as a trenched corridor, because it needs to underpass/tunnel under highway interchanges/ramps in a straight line at freight-friendly grades (1 degree or less). This provides a heck of a lot of "containment" in a disaster. Plus, there's zero surface crossings, no accidents with road vehicles. And given the grades of the landscape, it appears a neutral grade (near 0 degree) seems doable which prevents runaway trains like Lac-Mégantic (1.2% grade). Even a shoestring 407 corridor (cheapest budget) would have a safety factor MUCH better per train, too. Night and day.
 
Last edited:
I think the concern is less with the new tracks themselves but with the larger amount of trains running along the existing CN line. That section runs a lot closer to people's homes, though not nearly as many as CPs current mainline.
 
The CN corridor - and MacMillian Yard - was built in the early 1960s. Most of the houses built in Thornhill were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Except for the area between east of Dufferin Street and east of Bayview Avenue, and the south side of the tracks between Finch and Airport Roads in Malton, the corridor isn't very close to anyone's backyard. And the CN freight bypass was there first. Only the Lisgar-Halwest section would be new.
 
Allandale25 said:
A local residents association weighs in. Letter to the editor here.
Click to expand...

"Although GARA is in full support of enhancing GO Transit service for commuters, it does not support a solution which would increase the frequency of freight train traffic in our area."

Basically the same BS as the Davenport folks. "I don't support transit in my neighbourhood, but I fully support transit."
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top