407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

[steveintoronto]

I don't follow. Who are "all three" and who are "they"?

The quote of yours that I posted my answer to: Pickering/Scarborough and Bramalea.
All three are in favour. Any concerns they have are addressed in other ways, or trade-off of risk.

(Referring to the virtually omnipotent power of the Transportation Act) You're probably right but that doesn't mean they would use it. Is there any recent example of the Feds using it other than with regulating tank cars or grain delivery (I think they did those things under the Act you're referring to).

Yes, CP and CN have been forced to share track and/or RoW in a number of instances, recently and historically. Ottawa was radically transformed by the Capital Commission, not only expropriating track from the Big Two, (and some smaller players, NYCentral being one) but dictating new ownership and routes. It was, as is prescribed in the Act: (gist) 'substituting like for like', albeit that is paraphrased more from the Fed Expropriation Act than the Transpo Act, which refers to the Expropriation Act in many sections and clauses. Btw: Since CP already has existing trackage that will be paralleled by CN, an EA is not required under the Transportation Act. And where not paralleled, it will be on provincial corridor land, covered under the Ontario Electricity Act, and some of the Public Utilities Act would also apply. Mostly this just takes *leadership at the top* (read Federal). The Province would fall in right behind it.

"Vast majority" is a little hard to quantify. Mississauga, Toronto, Milton and Cambridge would be in favour but York Region may not be.

Right there, the yeas have it, by a vastly overwhelming number. Miss and Brampton alone overwhelm York Region's 1M in numbers. I leave it to you to add in the rest.

There's nothing of substance against this from any practical angle, save for *financing* (and at the end of the day, it would be net neutral considering Metrolinx' costs allayed alone, not to mention gains by VIA and other third parties, not to mention the vastly more efficient movement of freight around the GTA). Even York Region's faux pas protestations mean little, but the following is (and unfortunately, I dumped the link cleaning off my taskbar, so I paraphrase):
"York Region voted overwhelmingly (by those that voted) Liberal in the last federal election, some getting in by just the slimmest of majority. At least one of those seats is a Cabinet Min (Philpott). Is there the political will to do this?

Logic virtually dictates it. The weasel world of politics might state otherwise.

This recent derailment in Toronto might just spark a new enthusiasm to tip the issue. A lot lies in the hands of the press.

Great pics, btw innsert!

 

[minilude]

York has two CN rails - York sub and Bala sub. If I were the officials I'd negotiate to merge the Bala sub trains to CP's MacTier sub if CP wants to merge their mainline to York Sub. Bala sub can then be sold to metrolinx for Richmond hill RER.

 

[steveintoronto]

York has two CN rails - York sub and Bala sub. If I were the officials I'd negotiate to merge the Bala sub trains to CP's MacTier sub if CP wants to merge their mainline to York Sub. Bala sub can then be sold to metrolinx for Richmond hill RER.

Even if some details were to foil your idea, that is exactly the gist of 'trade-offs' that can occur to make the *productivity and efficiency* of rail services in an around the GTA much better for all concerned.

Since CN and CP are loathe to talk deals like this between themselves, and there's so many other players at the table on it, the only authority to rationalize all of this is in Ottawa. And what do we hear? {{...sound of crickets chirping...}}.

In past decades, the Transportation Minister was a very powerful actor making bold decisions. No more....

 

[Allandale25]

The quote of yours that I posted my answer to: Pickering/Scarborough and Bramalea.
All three are in favour. Any concerns they have are addressed in other ways, or trade-off of risk.

Thanks for clarifying. Although I don't think Durham Region or Pickering have weighed in on the Missing Link. I was referring to the geography locations of the start/end points on the York Sub for CP. Brampton wasn't part of the Mississauga-led report but they've spoken in favour. I do wonder if they would still want CP Rail to be part of the deal for the 407 trench portion if there was any risk of delay for the improvements for the Kitchener Corridor.

Yes, CP and CN have been forced to share track and/or RoW in a number of instances, recently and historically.

I think the examples of Federal intervention are more historic than recent.

Ottawa was radically transformed by the Capital Commission, not only expropriating track from the Big Two, (and some smaller players, NYCentral being one) but dictating new ownership and routes. It was, as is prescribed in the Act: (gist) 'substituting like for like', albeit that is paraphrased more from the Fed Expropriation Act than the Transpo Act, which refers to the Expropriation Act in many sections and clauses. Btw: Since CP already has existing trackage that will be paralleled by CN, an EA is not required under the Transportation Act. And where not paralleled, it will be on provincial corridor land, covered under the Ontario Electricity Act, and some of the Public Utilities Act would also apply. Mostly this just takes *leadership at the top* (read Federal). The Province would fall in right behind it.

So you're saying the portion between Bramalea and Pickering/Scarborough won't require an EA? Given the number of bridge extensions and the interchange track for the CP MacTier Sub and for the Agincourt yard, I'm not so sure but this isn't my area of expertise.

Right there, the yeas have it, by a vastly overwhelming number. Miss and Brampton alone overwhelm York Region's 1M in numbers. I leave it to you to add in the rest.

I just think the situation is more complex than saying all of cities A and B are in favour but all of Region C is against.

 

[steveintoronto]

Thanks for clarifying. Although I don't think Durham Region or Pickering have weighed in on the Missing Link. I was referring to the geography locations of the start/end points on the York Sub for CP. Brampton wasn't part of the Mississauga-led report but they've spoken in favour. I do wonder if they would still want CP Rail to be part of the deal for the 407 trench portion if there was any risk of delay for the improvements for the Kitchener Corridor.

"Risk of delay"? We're well past that by years already, with no end in sight. The estimated cost of the K/W all-day project alone equals the estimated cost of the Missing Link (approx $5B). And that's just the K/W corridor. The Missing Link, for the $5B projected, is a *bargain* compared to the alternatives to doing it.

I think the examples of Federal intervention are more historic than recent.

Here's some recent ones:

Decision No. 33-R-2000 | Canadian Transportation Agency
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/33-r-2000
Mar 18, 2013 - CN and CP filed their answers in October and the applicants ... and to produce the affirmation by the Minister of Transport relating to the interest ...
Letter Decision No. LET-R-209-1999 | Canadian Transportation Agency
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/let-r-209-1999
Aug 3, 1999 - The Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) has received an ... Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as the Minister of Transport. NOTICE TO PRODUCE. The Agency hereby directs CN and CP to immediately file with the ...
Decision No. 383-R-1989 | Canadian Transportation Agency
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/383-r-1989
Mar 13, 2013 - On December 16, 1988, CP applied to the National Transportation Agency ... between the CN Dundas and CP Simcoe lines at Paris Junction. ... The Ontario Ministry of Transport (hereinafter the Ministry) and the Mayor of ...
Chapter 7: Proximity Issues - Transport Canada
www.tc.gc.ca › Home › Rail Transportation › Rail Safety › Railway Safety Act Review
Mar 6, 2013 - Travelling from Calgary to Edmonton in a CP track evaluation car, we had .... 1992 that made more crossing accidents reportable, CN and CP transfer ... must apply to the Minister, who considers the matter and makes a ruling.

Allandale:

So you're saying the portion between Bramalea and Pickering/Scarborough won't require an EA? Given the number of bridge extensions and the interchange track for the CP MacTier Sub and for the Agincourt yard, I'm not so sure but this isn't my area of expertise.

Transportation Act:

[...]
Interests of localities
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) came into force on July 6, 2012, replacing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and removing the requirement for an environmental assessment for certain railway line construction projects.

Following the legislative changes, railway companies were consulted regarding the Agency’s proposed approach to applications under section 98 of the CTA, resulting in an understanding that railway companies remain responsible for demonstrating to the Agency that the requirements of that provision are met, whether an environmental assessment is required or not.

The Agency adopted the following approach, indicating that railway companies will:

• undertake consultations with the localities with a view to developing collaborative measures to address the relevant issues raised;
• consult with municipalities, adjacent landowners and Aboriginal groups, when and as applicable;
• provide information to allow an adequate understanding of the project and to ensure that consultations are meaningful;
• provide the Agency with a detailed account of these consultations and any agreements put in place to address objections that may have been raised; and
• identify issues where no agreement was reached and that must be dealt with by the Agency.

Construction projects subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency may initiate an environmental assessment pursuant to CEAA 2012.

The Agency can only then proceed with approval under Section 98:

1. once an environmental assessment has been conducted; and
2. if it has been determined that the project will not cause significant adverse environmental effects.

For more information, see the Overview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment 2012.

The Regulations Designating Physical Activities set out which projects are subject to an environmental assessment under CEAA 2012, including:

• railway projects in a wildlife area or migratory bird sanctuary;
• railway lines longer than 32 km;
• railway yards with seven or more yard tracks or a total of 20 km or more;
• railway lines designed for trains that have an average speed of 200 km/h;
• international or interprovincial bridges or tunnels. [...]

• https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/approval-construct-railway-line

I just think the situation is (more) complex than saying all of cities A and B are in favour but all of Region C is against.

Obviously, but the vast majority of persons affected would be in favour of it. That's where "leadership" comes into it...one hopes. Ironic, as Garneau was on The National tonight talking on 'getting things done'. In all fairness to Garneau, and governments in general in Canada and elsewhere of late, the concept of participatory cabinet power is long gone, with few exceptions. Garneau is following a script, not written by him. York Region could see huge benefit from trade-offs to this, as minilude suggests. And more!

 

[Allandale25]

"Risk of delay"? We're well past that by years already, with no end in sight. The estimated cost of the K/W all-day project alone equals the estimated cost of the Missing Link (approx $5B). And that's just the K/W corridor. The Missing Link, for the $5B projected, is a *bargain* compared to the alternatives to doing it.

Here's some recent ones:

Decision No. 33-R-2000 | Canadian Transportation Agency
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/33-r-2000
Mar 18, 2013 - CN and CP filed their answers in October and the applicants ... and to produce the affirmation by the Minister of Transport relating to the interest ...
Letter Decision No. LET-R-209-1999 | Canadian Transportation Agency
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/let-r-209-1999
Aug 3, 1999 - The Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) has received an ... Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as the Minister of Transport. NOTICE TO PRODUCE. The Agency hereby directs CN and CP to immediately file with the ...
Decision No. 383-R-1989 | Canadian Transportation Agency
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/383-r-1989
Mar 13, 2013 - On December 16, 1988, CP applied to the National Transportation Agency ... between the CN Dundas and CP Simcoe lines at Paris Junction. ... The Ontario Ministry of Transport (hereinafter the Ministry) and the Mayor of ...
Chapter 7: Proximity Issues - Transport Canada

I looked at each one of the examples you provided and they don't seem to cover the topic we were discussing. Each one of those cases dealt with CN or CP abandoning rail lines. Do you have a different interpretation of each of those cases and how they would apply to the 407 portion and Bramalea-Pickering/Scarborough portion of this route? You said earlier that "the Feds have the power under the Transportation Act, by ministerial dictate alone if need be, to make this [the Missing Link, sharing track between Bramalea-Pickering/Scarborough] happen" and I asked if there were any recent examples of the Feds dictating that CN and CP should share track or a corridor.

I realize you mentioned an example of what happened in Ottawa decades ago. My sense is that any sharing of corridors (IE in BC or in Muskoka in Ontario) has been voluntary between CN and CP and not ordered by the Feds. I understand you believe that the Act gives the Feds the power to do this, I'm just wondering if realistically they would ever actually do it. My sense is that they would prefer a negotiated solution. When or if that will ever happen remains to be seen, and the extent the Feds will get involved with the CP Rail version of this concept. The only thing we know now is the June announcement that CN is at the table, something that's been discussed and debated here frequently.

Allandale:
Transportation Act:

• https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/approval-construct-railway-line

Thanks for sharing that. It's helpful to see the process the federal government may use to consider the additional track and bridges required between Bramalea and Scarborough/Pickering. I do note that the page you linked to also says this:

How does the process work?
The Agency may grant the approval if it considers that the location of the line is reasonable, taking into consideration:

1. the requirements for railway operations and services; and
2. the interests of localities that will be affected by the line.

It seems like there still might be some discretion possible by the Agency, or the ability for the Minister to intervene if they get a lot of pressure from people living along the CN York Sub including their Liberal MPs. The only recent example I can think of is the reaction from some in Milton and from the Town of Milton to the new CN intermodal yard south of Milton. I assume it's proceeding and haven't seen it in the news lately. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Garneau is following a script, not written by him. York Region could see huge benefit from trade-offs to this, as minilude suggests. And more!

Sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting York Region could see benefits from CP Rail using the CN York Sub? Or that there will be trade-offs?

 

[steveintoronto]

I looked at each one of the examples you provided and they don't seem to cover the topic we were discussing. Each one of those cases dealt with CN or CP abandoning rail lines. Do you have a different interpretation of each of those cases and how they would apply to the 407 portion and Bramalea-Pickering/Scarborough portion of this route? You said earlier that "the Feds have the power under the Transportation Act, by ministerial dictate alone if need be, to make this [the Missing Link, sharing track between Bramalea-Pickering/Scarborough] happen" and I asked if there were any recent examples of the Feds dictating that CN and CP should share track or a corridor.

You didn't mention "share a corridor", the inference was about 'intervention' and active governance with the powers of the Transportation Act.

Here are examples of shared tracks, and I may have been overly cynical on their ability to be 'co-operative when there's no other choice' but sections of the Transport Act have been invoked to mandate this, I'll find the sections and quote them again (quoted prior in the VIA string).
http://www.bcmea.com/pdfs/304/CN.pdf
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/109466.aspx
http://www.canadianshipper.com/feat...k-deal-to-share-routes-in-canada-and-the-u-s/
http://www.joc.com/cn-cp-near-deal-track-sharing_19921214.html

If anything, the examples above set examples of how the Feds can oversee the 'greater plan' with other players, and use sections of the Transportation Act with mandatory powers as an 'incentive' to reach deals.

I was just briefly searching now, I'm tired, will continue looking later, but did find this in response to an earlier question of yours on the need for EAs or not:

Railway Lines
Marginal note:No construction without Agency approval

• 98 (1) A railway company shall not construct a railway line without the approval of the Agency.
  
  
• Marginal note:Grant of approval
  (2) The Agency may, on application by the railway company, grant the approval if it considers that the location of the railway line is reasonable, taking into consideration requirements for railway operations and services and the interests of the localities that will be affected by the line.
  
  
• Marginal note:Exception
  (3) No approval is needed for the construction of a railway line
  • (a) within the right of way of an existing railway line; or
    
    
  • (b) within 100 m of the centre line of an existing railway line for a distance of no more than 3 km.

Marginal note:Filing agreements

• 99 (1) An agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, relating to the construction of a railway line across another railway line may be filed with the Agency.
  
  
• Marginal note:Effect of filing
  (2) When the agreement or amendment is filed, it becomes an order of the Agency authorizing the parties to construct the railway line as provided in the agreement.
  
  
• Marginal note:No agreement
  (3) If a person is unsuccessful in negotiating an agreement or amendment mentioned in subsection (1), the Agency may, on application, authorize the construction of the railway line or any related work.

• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-10.4/page-14.html#h-51

I realize you mentioned an example of what happened in Ottawa decades ago. My sense is that any sharing of corridors (IE in BC or in Muskoka in Ontario) has been voluntary between CN and CP and not ordered by the Feds. I understand you believe that the Act gives the Feds the power to do this, I'm just wondering if realistically they would ever actually do it.

It's been done, and examples given. I posted them in the VIA forum. I'm getting tired tonight, had a very early morning, so I'll search the VIA forum to find it again. Search tags are eluding me at this time.

My sense is that they would prefer a negotiated solution.

So would everyone, I've made that point when discussing this prior in the VIA forum.

When or if that will ever happen remains to be seen, and the extent the Feds will get involved with the CP Rail version of this concept.

I see little choice at this rate. It's far more than just CN and CP, there's massive intervention to negotiate and barter needed, not the least with Pension Funds and other likely investors. Legislation might even have to be written to specifically address this so as to prevent court appeals.

The only thing we know now is the June announcement that CN is at the table, something that's been discussed and debated here frequently.

lol...and pigs fly. How's that timetable for All-Day Kitchener service coming along? Wynne is desperate for anyone to sing along with her. Her poll ratings are abysmal. CP's full involvement is needed to make this work. It can be mandated by existing legislation if needed. Best it's by co-operative agreement, coerced or otherwise.

I'll post the legislative powers of the Transport Minister (the specific Act(s) might be the Railway Act and associated ones, and not even mention "Minister" per-se, it makes Googling difficult without having the tag right, it might be even be "Governor", sections of the various Acts are archaic, and only updated, not rewritten, for over a century.

Sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting York Region could see benefits from CP Rail using the CN York Sub? Or that there will be trade-offs?

Both.

 

[Allandale25]

You didn't mention "share a corridor", the inference was about 'intervention' and active governance with the powers of the Transportation Act.

Here are examples of shared tracks, and I may have been overly cynical on their ability to be 'co-operative when there's no other choice' but sections of the Transport Act have been invoked to mandate this, I'll find the sections and quote them again (quoted prior in the VIA string).

Glad we're on the same page now.

If anything, the examples above set examples of how the Feds can oversee the 'greater plan' with other players, and use sections of the Transportation Act with mandatory powers as an 'incentive' to reach deals.

I was just briefly searching now, I'm tired, will continue looking later, but did find this in response to an earlier question of yours on the need for EAs or not:

• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-10.4/page-14.html#h-51

It's been done, and examples given. I posted them in the VIA forum. I'm getting tired tonight, had a very early morning, so I'll search the VIA forum to find it again. Search tags are eluding me at this time.

Look forward to seeing the specifics you're referring to.

CP's full involvement is needed to make this work. It can be mandated by existing legislation if needed. Best it's by co-operative agreement, coerced or otherwise.

That's your speculative opinion but I'm not convinced that the Kitchener Corridor improvements involving only CN require CP's participation in the larger deal. Neither of us have inside knowledge or connections with any of the key players so all we can do is speculate until there's real news.

 

[steveintoronto]

Red text my highlighting:
Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996, c. 10)
[...]
Running Rights and Joint Track Usage
Marginal note:Application by railway company

• 138 (1) A railway company may apply to the Agency for the right to
  • (a) take possession of, use or occupy any land belonging to any other railway company;
    
    
  • (b) use the whole or any portion of the right-of-way, tracks, terminals, stations or station grounds of any other railway company; and
    
    
  • (c) run and operate its trains over and on any portion of the railway of any other railway company.
• Marginal note:Application may be granted
  (2) The Agency may grant the right and may make any order and impose any conditions on either railway company respecting the exercise or restriction of the rights as appear just or desirable to the Agency, having regard to the public interest.
  
  
• Marginal note:Compensation
  (3) The railway company shall pay compensation to the other railway company for the right granted and, if they do not agree on the compensation, the Agency may, by order, fix the amount to be paid.

Marginal note:Request for joint or common use of right-of-way

• 139 (1) The Governor in Council may
  • (a) on the application of a railway company, a municipal government or any other interested person, or on the Governor in Council’s own initiative, and
  • (b) after any investigation that the Governor in Council considers necessary,
  request two or more railway companies to consider the joint or common use of a right-of-way if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that its joint or common use may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rail transport and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies.
• Marginal note:Order in Council for joint or common use of right-of-way
  (2) If the Governor in Council is satisfied that significant efficiencies and cost savings would result from joint or common use of the right-of-way by two or more railway companies and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies, the Governor in Council may make any order for the joint or common use of the right-of-way that the Governor in Council considers necessary.
  
  
• Marginal note:Compensation
  (3) The Governor in Council may also, by order, fix the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the joint or common use of the right-of-way and any related work if the companies do not agree on the amount of that compensation.
• [...]
• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-20.html#docCont

Comment later, I'm well past cooked...

Edit to Add: "Governor in Council" *Effectively* = Transport Minister or an assigned deputy. I'll dig out the official definition later. GICs are appointed by the Crown (G-G), the position is one of static authority, not active.

See: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/02/25...nces-new-governor-council-appointment-process

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

The problem with "we gotta move CP traffic because safety" is that it doesn't really help sell the link to those communities the new line will run near...

The Toronto Bypass trackage is much safer as it generally runs through a hydro corridor and where it does run through neighbourhoods, it is generally trenched. There are probably only around a hundred residential units within the modern standard 30m rail setback, compared to likely thousands within that area on the current CP line.

I wish someone would just quantify this on both corridors and put in a graphic form already.

 

[steveintoronto]

I wish someone would just quantify this on both corridors and put in a graphic form already.

https://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocume.../ENG-020-15 The Missing Link Final Report.pdf

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tr...t-from-a-missing-link-freight-rail-route.html

 

[Allandale25]

Helpful to see. Are there any examples (other than what happened in Ottawa in the 1960s) of 139(1)(b) being used?

Red text my highlighting:
Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996, c. 10)

Marginal note:Request for joint or common use of right-of-way

• 139 (1) The Governor in Council may
  • (a) on the application of a railway company, a municipal government or any other interested person, or on the Governor in Council’s own initiative, and
  • (b) after any investigation that the Governor in Council considers necessary,
  request two or more railway companies to consider the joint or common use of a right-of-way if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that its joint or common use may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rail transport and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies.
• Marginal note:Order in Council for joint or common use of right-of-way
  (2) If the Governor in Council is satisfied that significant efficiencies and cost savings would result from joint or common use of the right-of-way by two or more railway companies and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies, the Governor in Council may make any order for the joint or common use of the right-of-way that the Governor in Council considers necessary.
  
  
• Marginal note:Compensation
  (3) The Governor in Council may also, by order, fix the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the joint or common use of the right-of-way and any related work if the companies do not agree on the amount of that compensation.
• [...]
• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-20.html#docCont

 

[crs1026]

I wish someone would just quantify this on both corridors and put in a graphic form already.

The guidelines for setback are at http://www.proximityissues.ca/asset...es/2013_05_29_guidelines_newdevelopment_e.pdf

All they require is that the building foundation be 30m from the railway property line, with a berm and fencing in between. Even on the Galt/North Toronto Sub a vast majority of the nearby residential structures will meet that standard. The expropriation required to fully implement the standard is probably far cheaper than building the bypass. What would be painful in implementing the standard retroactively (it only addresses new construction) is the number of residences that would have to give up their back yards for the berm and fencing..... note that the standard only requires this to be created on private property, not on the railroad property. It would be a civic zoning issue to implement this, not a railway regulatory issue. CP is off the hook.

It's also noteworthy how ready the City of Toronto has been to bend the standard. The new condo buildings at Davenport have an exemption from the standard. And we know from the Judson study that Toronto City Council has no resolve on this matter.

So, there is no precise answer. The real question is what level of risk do property owners in the 31-500 meter zone assume today, and are we happy with that. Personally I think the potential for serious accident in the city core is not acceptable. So I'm all for the bypass. But the standard doesn't really make that compelling a case.

Re Steve's extensive analysis of the legalities - that's all well and good, but it's a fundamentally flawed analysis - unless there is some extensive precedent. The courts will not relax a very consistent standard of holding EA's for much less intrusive and impactful projects, especially where there is significant community interest which easily justifies a process of consultation and community input. The TPAP process is actually useful for this, and it doesn't have to take forever. All the analyses in an EA (counting turtles, and whatnot) are not really significant in themselves - but they form the facts on which objectors can debate and argue whether a project's impacts are acceptable. I would predict the courts to side with opponents if the government were to attempt to circumvent the input process. None of the legal stuff that Steve has cited overrides this basic principle, I'd argue.

As to government using legal powers to force the railways to the table, again I doubt that would pass a court challenge. This is not a "crisis" or even a "hardship situation" where the government has to exercise emergency powers or override the railways' interests. The court is not going to allow the government to impose an economic "hardship" on CP. The incentive for CP is the huge real estate value locked in its central Toronto holdings. Just bring a chequebook, and muse about air rights over CP property, and CP will negotiate.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Excellent analysis Paul and that's essentially the point I was trying to make. The Act might have certain provisions but whether or not they are used and how they would stand up to legal challenges from local residents or by the freight railways needs to be taken into account. Given how long it took to get CN to the table to sign an Agreement in Principal for the 407 trench section, it's going to take more time I would imagine to work through a complex deal with CP Rail.

The guidelines for setback are at http://www.proximityissues.ca/asset...es/2013_05_29_guidelines_newdevelopment_e.pdf

All they require is that the building foundation be 30m from the railway property line, with a berm and fencing in between. Even on the Galt/North Toronto Sub a vast majority of the nearby residential structures will meet that standard. The expropriation required to fully implement the standard is probably far cheaper than building the bypass. What would be painful in implementing the standard retroactively (it only addresses new construction) is the number of residences that would have to give up their back yards for the berm and fencing..... note that the standard only requires this to be created on private property, not on the railroad property. It would be a civic zoning issue to implement this, not a railway regulatory issue. CP is off the hook.

It's also noteworthy how ready the City of Toronto has been to bend the standard. The new condo buildings at Davenport have an exemption from the standard. And we know from the Judson study that Toronto City Council has no resolve on this matter.

So, there is no precise answer. The real question is what level of risk do property owners in the 31-500 meter zone assume today, and are we happy with that. Personally I think the potential for serious accident in the city core is not acceptable. So I'm all for the bypass. But the standard doesn't really make that compelling a case.

Re Steve's extensive analysis of the legalities - that's all well and good, but it's a fundamentally flawed analysis - unless there is some extensive precedent. The courts will not relax a very consistent standard of holding EA's for much less intrusive and impactful projects, especially where there is significant community interest which easily justifies a process of consultation and community input. The TPAP process is actually useful for this, and it doesn't have to take forever. All the analyses in an EA (counting turtles, and whatnot) are not really significant in themselves - but they form the facts on which objectors can debate and argue whether a project's impacts are acceptable. I would predict the courts to side with opponents if the government were to attempt to circumvent the input process. None of the legal stuff that Steve has cited overrides this basic principle, I'd argue.

As to government using legal powers to force the railways to the table, again I doubt that would pass a court challenge. This is not a "crisis" or even a "hardship situation" where the government has to exercise emergency powers or override the railways' interests. The court is not going to allow the government to impose an economic "hardship" on CP. The incentive for CP is the huge real estate value locked in its central Toronto holdings. Just bring a chequebook, and muse about air rights over CP property, and CP will negotiate.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

https://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocuments/Council/agendas2015/rpts2015/ENG-020-15 The Missing Link Final Report.pdf

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tr...t-from-a-missing-link-freight-rail-route.html

I meant more of something like this (small hasty example):

If you could tally up all the residences and other institutional buildings within those areas, and the amount of people dwelling in them, the argument here has been there are way more along CP's midtown corridor. I want the hard numbers that show it.