News   Aug 07, 2020
 2.8K     6 
News   Aug 07, 2020
 677     0 
News   Aug 07, 2020
 773     0 

407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
Do your homework before spewing your 'knowitallism'

And 10 minutes saved is better than none *facepalm*
lol...he's back...

Well there Royal, all you have to do to make your point is post the schedule times. Perhaps someone could help you?
As to the "freight by-pass"...I was just reading back. A lot of persons drank the Kool-Aid. And here we are, almost a month later, and not a word on it in the press.

If there is, by all means, post it. Meantime, the train travel time from Kitchener to Union is a few minutes over two hours, if it's on-time. 10 minutes less you claim? If you think that's a game-changer, then good for you.

I certainly don't, neither do most of the others I speak with.
 

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,673
Reaction score
4,204
A lot of persons drank the Kool-Aid. And here we are, almost a month later, and not a word on it in the press.
I really think you're being a tad impatient by using the press as the only measure of progress in 2016 on the bypass/Kitchener Corridor expansion. As I've said before, they are probably getting the RFP and EA expansion documents ready. I can't see how they won't release those in 2016 if they want service by 2024. I highly doubt the media will cover this again until construction actually starts or if one party in 2018 doesn't fully commit.

The media tends to cover stories when there is a big milestones or controversial news. For example, I don't recall a lot of stories between the announcement of the subway to Vaughan and the start of actual construction. Lots of other examples out there. The Kitchener Corridor expansion and bypass will follow the same media pattern as Bowmanville or Niagara expansion - there will be more media attention when the media feels like it's worth repointing given the priority of other stories. There are two major transit reporters right now: Ben Spurt and Oliver Moore. You could email them and ask their level of interest in this project and see when they'll write about it.

Good news though. What the media does not report people on Urban Toronto post. So I'm confident that the next sign of progress for the bypass and Kitchener Corridor will be posted here long before the media covers this. That's the Urban Toronto advantage.

That's why people interested in the specific details of transit expansion come here. It's an incredible source for information and insight.
 
Last edited:

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
As I've said before, they are probably getting the RFP and EA expansion documents ready.
Without an agreement? You can't be serious.

Do you get quotes for renos and city hall approval before you buy a property?
Duhaime's Law Dictionary

Agreement in Principle Definition:
An agreement as to the terms of some future contract.
Related Terms: Contract


Also approval in principle.

An oxymoron as an agreement in principle is no agreement at all.

To bind the parties, a contract must be concluded in all its fundamental terms, with nothing left to negotiate. Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9(1), "Contracts":

"It follows that, prima facie, there is no concluded contract where further agreement is expressly required...

"(I)f the parties have recahed an agreement in principle only, it may be that the proper inference is that they have not yet finished agreeing, for instance: where they make their agreement subject to details or subject to contract; or where so many important matters are left uncertain that their agreement is incomplete."

In Winsor Homes, Justice Gushe assessed the contractual significance of an approval in principle given to a development scheme:

"... it is merely an expression of intent and has no legal significance whatsoever."

However, often parties to an agreement in principle, details to be worked out later, commence implementing the agreement, working out the details as they go along. In those circumstances, which occur often, the courts will be more likely to determine that a contract exists and enforce it as best they can.

REFERENCES:
  • Winsor Homes Ltd. v St. John's Mun. Council 20 Nfld. & PEIR 361; also at 53 APR 361 (1978)
*In some instances* an 'Agreement in Principle is binding as an oral contract, but not in cases like this. If there is a binding contract, then why is it not being made public?

And if there is one, why is the public not party to it? They certainly should be...
 

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,673
Reaction score
4,204
Without an agreement? You can't be serious.
I am. My sense is that the Agreement in Principle allows for the EA/RFP/design work to commence by Metrolinx, CN, consultants, etc.

As I've said before, if the promised service never materializes on the bypass and Kitchener Corridor I will post here "I was mistaken. The Agreement in Principle did not result in any change to the 2016 status quo". Feel free to screen capture this.

If the 2018 election results in a new government changing the priorities for GO and dropping the expansion, I'll post here that "the 2018 government decided to do something differently." Time will tell.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
My sense is that the Agreement in Principle allows for the EA/RFP/design work to commence by Metrolinx, CN, consultants, etc.
Then those would be announced...so far, not a word from the Feds, or they'd be announcing that. In fact, if they were posed to fund, the Feds would have been at the news conference, working the PR for all it's worth.

[...]
Announcement 'an insult'
Kitchener-Conestoga MPP Michael Harris called Tuesday's announcements "an insult" to commuters and businesses in the region.

The Conservative politician said Wynne was just reannouncing previous promises.

"It's like Groundhog Day all over again. We're told to expect a big GO transit announcement; we hope it will finally deliver the promised all-day, two-way service and we awake to a reannouncement of increased peak trains," Harris said in a release. "These are the kind of games this government plays with our transit priorities."

Kitchener-Waterloo MPP and NDP finance critic Catherine Fife said Tuesday's announcement was a start, but there's still a long way to go before the needs of commuters are met.

"The key is connectivity – getting people to their jobs in Kitchener-Waterloo in the morning and home again," Fife said in a release.

"To do that, Waterloo Region needs two-way GO service. While today's agreement-in-principle helps, without a funding commitment for a bypass that will cost billions, without a proposed route, without an environmental assessment, without a commitment from the federal government, there is little reason to believe that the premier's promise to deliver all-day, two-way GO rail by 2024 is any more solid that the previous promise to deliver all-day, two-way GO rail by 2019."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...e-kitchener-toronto-wynne-announces-1.3634285

Sour words, but very true. Where's the money?
 
Last edited:

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,673
Reaction score
4,204
Then those would be announced...so far, not a word from the Feds, or they'd be announcing that. In fact, if they were posed to fund, the Feds would have been at the news conference, working the PR for all it's worth.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...e-kitchener-toronto-wynne-announces-1.3634285

Sour words, but very true. Where's the money?
"So far" being the key words. There is still time for the federal government to be part of this if the province requests. As MPs in the government have said, they just fund what local governments and provinces want. They don't pick projects on their own. Adam Vaughan has said this repeatedly on the Scarborough Subway issue. It's possible the province could ask for help on other projects and not this one.

"Sohi said Thursday that he wants to give broad flexibility to municipalities to spend the infrastructure cash as they see fit, within the broad goals set by Ottawa." Article here: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...al-funds-distributed-as-soon-as-possible.html

In terms of "where" the money is, I assume it'll be part of the $10B or so RER project budget. Again, if they want it up an running by 2024, some contracts will have to be signed before the 2018 provincial election in order for them to meet the deadline. It's when the contracts are announced that we'll start to see the money flow.

For example, AECON just got $100M to do detailed engineering and project management for the Hurontario LRT. That's the real first money spent in the $1.4B project. It was announced in May 2016 and the Minister made project announcement in May 2015. So it does take a bit of time for the first series of contracts to be announced.

In the bypass-Kitchener EA process, I assume real money will flow when more design work is completed over the next two years or so. The EA will have to be funded and then construction.
 

alexanderglista

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
1,826
Reaction score
2,801
Location
Oakville

DonValleyRainbow

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,893
Location
Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
Looks like there is "some" movement on this file from the part of the City of Mississauga.
They still have the Kitchener illustrated as a freight corridor in the solution figure. And it shows freight through Union?! WTF?!
 

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,673
Reaction score
4,204
They still have the Kitchener illustrated as a freight corridor in the solution figure. And it shows freight through Union?! WTF?!
There are a couple of issues with the map, even though it's "not to scale". The LRT should extend a little further north and passed the blue "Missing Link" line. The map is missing the Lakeshore West Corridor. I don't know why they didn't name the Corridors.

I don't see a blue line through Union Station so I don't understand the comment about freight going through it. Has anyone been able to get the "Maps" section to open? It keeps crashing on me.

 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
There are a couple of issues with the map, even though it's "not to scale". The LRT should extend a little further north and passed the blue "Missing Link" line. The map is missing the Lakeshore West Corridor. I don't know why they didn't name the Corridors.

I don't see a blue line through Union Station so I don't understand the comment about freight going through it. Has anyone been able to get the "Maps" section to open? It keeps crashing on me.
I do see the issue Allandale has, it's an obvious fault on the first diagram, but it's not of great consequence. The subsequent diagram and maps make the case clear.

I also had some trouble getting downloads to function as they should, but thought it was a glitch my end, I did eventually get the links to open as requested. Their server might be having a bad day. There's nothing new on the site to those of us who've pored over this in the past, but I am very impressed that Mississauga (which led this concept) has the where-with-all to promote it, and the *value* of it.

I call the Link the "Ring that binds them All", inasmuch as it should be top priority over any other major GO project, not to mention being in the interests of CP and CN, and VIA and the GTA in general, but I'm *very* skeptical on funding to see this through.

I do see a case as follows: Minister of Transport issues an Order in Council under the Transportation Act for CP, CN and Other Parties to enter into an agreement to form a consortium, to which the Feds will also commit/guarantee a large sum (*note later), and the Province in granting land use of provincial land (the hydro corridor, provincial law (Electricity Act) stipulates multi-use where possible for corridors) to build a twin running line for the link for both CP and CN, with the option of passenger access too with caveats, and this 'consortium', at least for the inception and interim, is the ward of the Federal Government (ostensibly the DoT) until such time as a *land swap* that follows is completed to exchange ownership of surrendered RoWs to the Province for ownership of the corridor land offered. Needless to say, this would happen *before* the Hydro One sale is completed.

It would be very difficult to negotiate land sales back and forth as trades, but the mechanism for outright land swap (like for like) (without sales and the complications) is contained in the Transportation Act.

There might also be good cause to include the Ontario Pension Funds (Teachers, etc) in this scheme in buying and providing ancillary services, but not the RoW proper.

There are precedents of this happening prior in Canada. The real question isn't whether this can happen or not, it's a case of *where is the leadership?*

Mississauga's dedicated site for this is obviously just PR, but it's a damn good start. Hopefully the word is out to Toronto and the other involved cities and town to do same....or even better, merge them all onto one site for this. It's a good step to making this an issue the Province and the Hill can't shy away from.

[ to which the Feds will also commit/guarantee a large sum (*note later)]:

This commitment, or underwritten value, is later recovered through land sales parceled out of the traded RoWs released for passenger only use. (In fact, limited temporal freight might have to be permitted on some lines) The Feds, unless it is via VIA, really don't want to be in the biz of running railroads it doesn't own, albeit that is worthy of discussion. Much better to grant some of the value to the Province in lieu of cash infrastructure grants. This is where the Pension Funds can come in, to help neutralize how the massive funding for this appears on the books. Done right, very little will appear as debt on Federal or Provincial ledgers. That's important, as it allows other grants associated with building stations, electrifying, etc to be still available.

The bottom line is none of this will happen if left to the various potential partners on their own. CP and CN are not prone to realize mutual benefit, or any of the other parties, Wynne et al's photo-op with CN besides. They'd rather freeze in the dark than agree they'd all stay warm if they huddled together.

It's the *FEDS* who can and must make this happen. They'd damn well best be discussing this seriously behind closed doors right now! Time is wasting.

And another crucial point: *Vast sums of fund money* are available to make this happen, at least in part, but even the Funds can't do what the Feds can and should with the powers of the Transportation Act. We need the Feds to take leadership.
 
Last edited:

dunkalunk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
61
Well they're not TOTALLY wrong if you consider humans to be like freight.
Then it's still wrong. There is no human transport on the CN York Sub. (People getting paid to move the train don't count as human cargo). At best the diagram is incomplete
 

Garuda

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
166
Reaction score
224
Then it's still wrong. There is no human transport on the CN York Sub. (People getting paid to move the train don't count as human cargo). At best the diagram is incomplete
Most likely, a staff graphic designer, with little knowledge of railway line usage and a deadline to get the graphic out by noon made this on a busy day at city hall.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
7,457
Then it's still wrong. There is no human transport on the CN York Sub. (People getting paid to move the train don't count as human cargo). At best the diagram is incomplete
I can't resist a nitpick about VIA's Canadian.....but it's trivial to the point being made.

- Paul
 

Top