News   May 03, 2024
 926     1 
News   May 03, 2024
 564     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 275     0 

407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

London too. They have CN and CP traveling right through their downtown, with only a handful of grade-separations. They can easily be gridlocked when a train passes through. Not sure why their city council hasn't undertaken more grade-separations over the decades.

The 2011 High Speed Rail study examined a bypass around London (instead of serving the city centre, which is ridiculous). I always thought having that by-pass for CN/CP would be good, it would sweep by industrial parks on the south and southeast parts of town anyway.

I'd post the map, but I don't have it on this machine, and Transport Canada will only give out the report "by request only". Ridiculous. I'll try to remember to post it when I get the files.
 
Just catching up on some posts I'd missed. Using a 'strange' Apple computer where I am for the next week (deja vu to when I joined this forum)(same computer and location), but Paul's comments *will* be addressed with citations of prior rulings (I'll have to Google them again, give me a bit of time) and obviously, from citing the Missing Link Report, my prior Transportation Act citation, and another were clearly mentioned. The Laws are very clearly there, *plus the terms of financing*! What *apparently* isn't at this time is a degree of leadership.

I've yet to research the Relocation Act as described prior and in the report:
https://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocuments/Council/agendas2015/rpts2015/ENG-020-15 The Missing Link Final Report.pdf

Having challenges using this Mac until I get it to do what a normal keyboard format does, but for now:
Railway Relocation and Crossing Act - Justice
laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/r-4/
Railway Relocation and Crossing Act ( R.S.C. , 1985, c. R-4). Full Document: HTMLFull Document:Railway Relocation and Crossing Act |; XMLFull Document: ...
Railway Relocation and ...
An Act to facilitate the relocation of ... railway crossing means any ...
PARTS II AND III - [Repealed ...
PARTS II AND III[Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 118] ...
Determining Net Costs of ...
SCHEDULE(Section 15)Determining Net Costs of ...
Railway Act
Transitional Provisions Relating to Railway Act Amendments ...
More results from justice.gc.ca »
Relocation of Railway Lines in Urban Areas: A Resource Tool ...
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/relocation-railway-lines-urban-areas
Oct 1, 2015 - Introduction. The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act ( RRCA ) is designed to facilitate the relocation of railway lines or the rerouting of ...
Railway line construction and relocation | Canadian Transportation ...
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/line-construction-and-relocation
Mar 9, 2016 - How to get approval to construct a railway line The Agency ... railway lines, subsection 3(1) of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act ( RRCA ) ...
Approval to construct a railway line | Canadian Transportation Agency
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/approval-construct-railway-line
Mar 30, 2016 - If a federal railway company intends to construct a railway line, it must file ... Agency under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act for approval. ... Rail · Line construction andrelocation; Approval to construct a railway line ...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 07/06/16
I'd say a good peruse of the pertaining Acts would be a good place to start before even citing case law...
 
The Mac cloud has a silver lining! (At home, I use a Linux) It reformats PDFs so that they can be displayed in HTML with this forum software, and a quick glance at the Relocation Act shows:
PART I
Joint Urban Development and Transportation Plans
Marginal note: Application to Agency
  • 3 (1) Where, in respect of an area in a province that includes or comprises an urban area, in this Part called a “transportation study area”, the government of the province and all the municipalities within that area have agreed on an urban development plan and transportation plan, in this Part called an “accepted plan”, for that transportation study area, the province or a municipality may, subject to subsection 4(1), apply to the Agency for such orders as the Agency may make under section 7 or 8 and as are necessary to carry out the accepted plan.

  • Marginal note: art of urban area
    (2) The Agency may receive an application in respect of a transportation study area that includes only a part of an urban area if the Agency is satisfied that the accepted plan materially affects only those municipalities located wholly or in part in the transportation study area to which the accepted plan relates.

  • Marginal note: Financial assistance
    (3) Subject to subsection (4) and to such regulations as the Governor in Council may make in that behalf,
    • (a) the Minister of Transport may authorize the payment, out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor, of part of the cost of preparing such one or more transportation plans in respect of a transportation study area as are desirable to consider for the transportation study area; and

    • (b) the Minister of Transport may authorize the payment, out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor, of part of the cost of preparing such one or more urban development plans in respect of a transportation study area as are desirable to consider for the transportation study area.
  • Marginal note: Limitation
    (4) Not more than fifty per cent of the amount of the cost of preparing urban development plans and transportation plans described in subsection (3) may be authorized for payment under that subsection.
  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 3;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359.
Marginal note: Examination of federal involvement
  • 4 (1) Where an application to the Agency under subsection 3(1) is made in respect of an accepted plan that contemplates the use of federal programs established under the authority of Parliament in implementing the urban development or transportation plans forming part of the accepted plan, the application shall not be received by the Agency unless it is shown to the Agency that
    • (a) the Minister of Transport is satisfied that the federal programs contemplated for use in the urban development plan forming part of the accepted plan are available and would contribute significantly to the improvement of any urban area within the transportation study area in respect of which the application is made; and

    • (b) the Governor in Council is prepared to authorize the allocation of moneys from the moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of making relocation grants under this Part for the transportation plan forming part of the accepted plan in respect of which the application is made.
  • Marginal note: Regulating priorities
    (2) The Agency may, if it deems it necessary to do so, make rules for the handling of applications under subsection 3(1), and may by those rules prescribe the periods during which applications will be received by the Agency and may adopt an order of priorities governing the receipt by it of those applications.
  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 4;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359.
Marginal note: Financial plan to accompany application
5
An application under section 3 shall contain a financial plan showing

  • (a) how the costs and benefits of the transportation plan included in the accepted plan are to be shared by the province, the municipalities concerned, the railways affected by the accepted plan and any other interests that may be affected thereby;

  • (b) how the costs of the transportation plan included in the accepted plan are to be met having regard to any amounts that may be applied thereto or recommended therefor under this Act;

  • (c) the dates between which any payments or transactions required by the financial plan are to be made or carried out;

  • (d) all financial assistance available to meet the costs of the transportation plan included in the accepted plan from all sources other than financial assistance from the Agency; and

  • (e) such other information as the Agency deems necessary in respect of the transportation plan included in the accepted plan.
  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 5;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359.
Marginal note: Submission to Agency of transportation plan
  • 6 (1) The accepted plan, together with the financial plan, shall be filed with the Agency and the Agency may accept the transportation plan and the financial plan either as submitted or with such changes in either of them as the Agency considers necessary, if
    • (a) the financial plan will not, in the opinion of the Agency, either
      • (i) impose on any railway company affected thereby any costs and losses greater than the benefits and payments receivable by the railway company under the plan, or

      • (ii) confer on any railway company affected thereby any benefits and payments greater than the costs and losses incurred by the railway company under the plan;
    • (b) the financial plan sets out the amounts that, in the opinion of the applicant, the Agency would likely apply or recommend for payment under this Act in order to carry the transportation plan into effect;

    • (c) when changes, if any, in the transportation plan or financial plan have been considered necessary by the Agency, the parties who prepared the accepted plan have agreed to modify that plan to the extent necessary to accord with the changes considered necessary by the Agency in the transportation plan or financial plan; and

    • (d) the Agency is satisfied that the financial assistance set out in the financial plan will be committed to the purposes of the transportation plan when required.
  • Marginal note: Hearing
    (2) Before making any order under section 7 or 8 in respect of any accepted plan, the Agency shall hold a hearing thereon.
  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 6;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/r-4/page-1.html

No citing of case law needed, albeit I will dig on that and post reference later, especially knowing that with this computer, I don't need to reformat line by line from PDF. The Acts (Transportation and Relocation) are very clear. And powerful.
 
Last edited:
The 2011 High Speed Rail study examined a bypass around London (instead of serving the city centre, which is ridiculous). I always thought having that by-pass for CN/CP would be good, it would sweep by industrial parks on the south and southeast parts of town anyway.

I'd post the map, but I don't have it on this machine, and Transport Canada will only give out the report "by request only". Ridiculous. I'll try to remember to post it when I get the files.

As promised. If anyone wants any other details/maps from the 2011 HSR feasibility study let me know.
dNc3rZT.png
 
Metrolinx has the following slides on the CN bypass and impacts on the Kitchener Corridor as part of a presentation that will be given to the September 9, 2016 Board meeting. Full agenda here. Full report here. Key slides related to this thread below.

Metrolinx Board meetings are livestreamed so folks could tune in to see if Board members may ask follow up questions. While this doesn't detail when the EA would start, the last slide in this series details the next steps. It's a little more information since the announcement two months ago.

slide-1-and-2.png


slide-3-and-4.png


slide-5-and-6.png
 
Metrolinx has the following slides on the CN bypass and impacts on the Kitchener Corridor as part of a presentation that will be given to the September 9, 2016 Board meeting.
Excellent 'heads-up' on that. Just glanced at it, but good cause for optimism. Will study intently later. Good find!
 
Excellent 'heads-up' on that. Just glanced at it, but good cause for optimism. Will study intently later. Good find!

I can't take too much credit. The Metrolinx Board meeting dates are always set well in advance and there's an ongoing item for RER. So it's easy to find these reports a few days before the meeting happens. The next one is in December.
 
The Corridor improvements section...isn't it pathetic that Milton's only news is 'we added more parking'?

I suppose. But without CP's cooperation and the lack of the feds (as per Steve's findings in the Act) bringing down the hammer not sure what else to expect. Drum has detailed over the years the 3rs track issue and I guess it's just not worth the fight with CP at this time to start using it/extend it.
 
I haven't had time to pore over Allandale's earlier post, there may be some hidden clues in there, I'm, giving it the benefit of the doubt...it would almost seem like they're starting to get whiff of forums like this one, where reasonably knowledgeable posters are starting to ask vexing questions, and not accepting the lame excuses anymore.

We pretty much have a consensus on utilizing the Bramalea to Union leg for an early form of RER using equipment laying idle...at least temporarily until they make their promises come true for electrification. By holding them to their own word, we make it uncomfortable for them. So I agree completely with Don's take on events, but I'm still going to thoroughly read Allan's post later. I might even try and make an appearance at the meeting, by hook or by crook, or by proxy.
 
Interesting how they put on the record that the Niagara, Kitchener, and Bowmanville announcements were over and above the previous RER plan and will necessitate reworking of the RER Service Plan.

The questions for the Board meeting would be - what has fallen off the plan in order to add these new items? What was deferred or rescheduled?

It looks like the LSE triple tracking Guildwood- Liverpool, and four-tracking Union-Scarboro are still on plan. Davenport is on the plan. It's not clear if anything else might be in the works.. eg..... Is any further trackwork planned towards Aurora, north of the zone being worked on at the moment? A while back, there was talk of improvements in the Don Valley - what happened to that whole plan? No plan to add track on LSW west of Canpa?

All of the items covered in this report are only at the EA stage. Updating/finishing the EA's is a necessary step, so that's good - now, what are the projected procurement dates for each of these? ML tends to offer timelines on a 'that's enough to know for now' basis....what's the notional timeline for each corridor all the way to 2024?

EDIT - yeah, I'm digressing - some of these comments might belong in the Construction thread rather than the bypass thread.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Interesting how they put on the record that the Niagara, Kitchener, and Bowmanville announcements were over and above the previous RER plan and will necessitate reworking of the RER Service Plan.

The questions for the Board meeting would be - what has fallen off the plan in order to add these new items? What was deferred or rescheduled?

EDIT - yeah, I'm digressing - some of these comments might belong in the Construction thread rather than the bypass thread.

- Paul

I'll digress from the the topic as well for the moment.

Here's a couple of speculative options:

1) Metrolinx hoped these projects would happen and made the RER budget larger than it needed to be with the hopes deals with CP and CN would be struck.

2) The Province will simply increase the budget.

3) Del Duca will re-allocate funding from other Big Move projects, like the money Brampton said no to for the HMLRT. I realize that money wouldn't be enough for the bypass/Bowmanville/Niagara but it's a start.

4) The Federal government will make up the difference in Phase II of their infrastructure spending.

Feel free to add in any perspective I could be missing.
 
The other interesting thing about the slides for the upcoming Board meeting is that they say "two tracks initially and up to a total of six tracks for the long term". I wonder if that suggests that they still hope CP Rail comes to the table.

Also, I wonder if that means the hydro towers would have to move to create more spaces on the south side of the 407. I could measure the width of six tracks and the see what that looks like on the 407 corridor. I'm sure Steve will want to comment on this.
 
I'll digress from the the topic as well for the moment.

Here's a couple of speculative options:

1) Metrolinx hoped these projects would happen and made the RER budget larger than it needed to be with the hopes deals with CP and CN would be struck.

Quite possible, maybe not by padding the books. The mixed freight-GO plan needed some big ticket items eg flyovers. The cost of the bypass plus the simpler enhancements to the Mount Pleasant line (much less required assuming it's freight-free) may be close to cost-neutral to what ML was budgeting pre-bypass.

I doubt that any of enhanced KW, Bowmanville or Niagara were ever in the envelope, because they were omitted from study under the RER BCS. Those parts seem to have been added at the political level. The ML presentation takes pains to point out that these are new projects. That's the kind of position that the bureaucracy makes when they are changing the budget numbers and don't want new deliverables attached to previously allocated funding.

The RER envelope is still notional - nobody really knows yet what the RER equipment, electrification and related signalling, and station costs may be. I'm sure the numbers contain a healthy amount of float. I doubt, however, that ML would give up that float so early in the RER program - they need the contingency funding. Hence the emphasis on needing an added budget line. That leaves the Province as the bad guy if something in RER has to be cut or deferred.

2) The Province will simply increase the budget.

Ulp. One man's simple spending increase is another man's drunken sailor in action. I suspect someone in MOT or Finance has an ugly looking spreadsheet that documents this point.

The reality is, this is all spending that won't kick in for a few years and the statement (per the Capital report to the upcoming Board meeting) it will all conclude concurrently in 2025 is a bit fanciful. There will be lots of juggling. The government that has to declare that it won't all fit may not be the party that made this plan.

3) Del Duca will re-allocate funding from other Big Move projects, like the money Brampton said no to for the HMLRT. I realize that money wouldn't be enough for the bypass/Bowmanville/Niagara but it's a start.

I will bet that the Richmond Hill GO of 2025 looks a lot like today's service.

4) The Federal government will make up the difference in Phase II of their infrastructure spending.

Some of the recent Phase I announcements effectively returned money to the Province on items that the Province previously expected to fund themselves. I would bet we see more of this. For instance - The RER fleet procurement might be partly funded if the right Canadian builder won the bid. I bet VIA is asked to fund improvements for the longer-distance services.

As per # 2, it may be a matter of recovering a little here, a little there, as Ottawa kicks in funding for various things, and proceeding as funds permit.

- Paul
 
Quite possible, maybe not by padding the books. The mixed freight-GO plan needed some big ticket items eg flyovers. The cost of the bypass plus the simpler enhancements to the Mount Pleasant line (much less required assuming it's freight-free) may be close to cost-neutral to what ML was budgeting pre-bypass.

I will bet that the Richmond Hill GO of 2025 looks a lot like today's service.

- Paul

Thanks Paul. Very helpful insights on the options I presented and excellent points. I'm not sure I exactly understand the Richmond Hill GO of 2025 comparison. Could you expand on your thinking here?
 

Back
Top