News   Feb 22, 2024
 190     0 
News   Feb 22, 2024
 345     0 
News   Feb 22, 2024
 384     0 

407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

Interesting graphic and no, I haven't see anything like that produced by governments or the media. I wonder what it would look like for the Thornhill area east of Yonge Street?

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

cX9u1QQ.png
 
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.
There are a number of articles that do that, I'll see what can be found later. You're right, having hard numbers and proximity makes the case.
 
Helpful to see. Are there any examples (other than what happened in Ottawa in the 1960s) of 139(1)(b) being used?
I'll research more later. Citing will help, but for now, we can see the incredible power the Transportation Act holds. When I first found that section months back, I could hardly believe my eyes.

It just goes to show the political vacuum we're living in the past few decades when it comes to bold leadership. In all fairness, a Minister wouldn't want to get this wrong*, but that's no excuse for inaction. Must cycle out on some errands, back later. I'll dig for more specific cases when the Act was invoked.

* The Act and others sets out the course of appeal for aggrieved parties: The Federal Court. If a Minister did invoke the section quoted above, it is possible that's where it would end-up. Careful approach and detail would avoid that. More later...
[...]
Jurisdiction
Unlike the general courts set up by each province, matters could not be brought before the Federal Court of Canada unless a law explicitly allowed the proceeding. The docket of the court primarily consisted of judicial reviews of immigration, intellectual property, and federal employment disputes. The court could also deal with incidental aspects of a dispute that fell outside its jurisdiction if the primary dispute was within its jurisdiction.

The court was a national court so trials and hearings occurred throughout Canada. Any orders rendered by the court were enforceable in all the provinces and territories. This contrasts with the provincial superior courts which are organized by each province and require additional steps to enforce decisions in other provinces.
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Canada
 
Last edited:
for more specific cases when the Act was invoked.

I'm sure there are many general examples. The most relevant cases to the topic of this thread are where sharing of a corridor was enforced by a government. That being said, Paul's earlier point is very helpful to understand the situation and what will likely happen.
 
^no matter what the numbers are....it won't help sell it to the people "adversely affected" to tell them that more people benefit than are "hurt"....individually, they won't care.
 
^no matter what the numbers are....it won't help sell it to the people "adversely affected" to tell them that more people benefit than are "hurt"....individually, they won't care.

True..... That's a politically and legally dangerous way to sell it to the community.

The likely approach is to just let the TPAP conclude "no adverse impact" and have the Minister sign off. And announce some other goodies for the community.

- Paul
 
^no matter what the numbers are....it won't help sell it to the people "adversely affected" to tell them that more people benefit than are "hurt"....individually, they won't care.

I don't disagree. If a study is ever announced for the Bramalea to Pickering/Scarborough portion there will be a community reaction along the line.
 
In addition to accident risk, running the additional trains via ML/CN York alignment offers guaranteed significantly more continuous noise, NOx, SOx and PMx. These aren't dinky Tier 4 services like UPX.
 
In addition to accident risk, running the additional trains via ML/CN York alignment offers guaranteed significantly more continuous noise, NOx, SOx and PMx. These aren't dinky Tier 4 services like UPX.
All that York Region has stated is that they wish to be involved in the discussion. York Region itself has not come out against the proposal, just certain neighbourhoods and communities. So have neighbourhoods in Toronto re: "The Diamond Flyover". City of Toronto is not opposing it, merely wish to shepherd the neighbourhood in getting it done the best way for all concerned.

Of course there's offsets, the same as running GO service to communities. That will be more noise, pollutions, danger, etc, etc.

York Region would benefit greatly from the changes that come with this. At the end of the day, the logic is clear: Shifting dangerous freight from a line never designed for it to one that was, from the get go, makes good sense. And the region to which that traffic is moved to gets a net benefit.

Helpful to see. Are there any examples (other than what happened in Ottawa in the 1960s) of 139(1)(b) being used?
I've not forgotten this question, but citing case law is often long and involved, and one must be focused to get results. I'll give it a try by Google, but there are legal specific search sites that are best for this. It will certainly buttress the case, the very case the Feds should be doing themselves.

Meantime, I re-read the quoted sections of the Act, and get amazed that such power exists. It may have been invoked recently, I'm sure it has been out West, but to try and get legislation that powerful through the House nowadays would be nigh impossible. That's the stuff of nation-building.

In the event, the Act is up for review.

Addendum: The Transportation Act is a relatively new one. I suspect that section being discussed was from an older act, and the background to why it's in there is an intriguing subject. There may have been an event that brought about it's inclusion, and more than "nation building". It was more likely a showdown. (Historically, there have been many with the railways)

I'm getting a tingling sense that that section may disappear when the Act is reviewed and possibly re-written, as tempering it allows the Powers That Be to act as marshmallows, and then little can impinge their getting re-elected.
 
Last edited:
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

Really interesting stuff, steve, thanks for posting. So this is a much more streamlined process than expropriation would be (though still politically difficult perhaps).

A minor quibble: Governor-in-Council means a federal Cabinet decision. You're thinking of "Governor in Council appointments" which is a different thing - non-civil service jobs that are appointed by the Cabinet or the PMO.
 
Really interesting stuff, steve, thanks for posting. So this is a much more streamlined process than expropriation would be (though still politically difficult perhaps).

A minor quibble: Governor-in-Council means a federal Cabinet decision. You're thinking of "Governor in Council appointments" which is a different thing - non-civil service jobs that are appointed by the Cabinet or the PMO.
Excellent response, thank you, and I'm very open to understanding the machinations of the Ministries at the very top. I start glossing over with the mention of "Governors-General". So any delineation of the actual actors and their functions is entirely helpful.

I've got to state again, I remain in awe of the *apparent* powers in this Act. It's going to take some digging to delineate what is doable or not in realistic terms, political and practical terms as you exactly state: "So this is a much more streamlined process than expropriation would be (though still politically difficult perhaps)"

Garneau (The Minister) doesn't even have to invoke this section, just the threat of being able to should bind some otherwise divergent minds together on it.

Btw: I'd previously read IIRC, that "the Governor" is "The Minsister", it's only in trying to clarify that title that I may have referenced incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
I wish someone would just quantify this on both corridors and put in a graphic form already.

I just did a very rudimentary assessment of residential development directly fronting the current CP line and the proposed missing link. Rather then looking at the property line, which would be difficult using google earth alone, I looked specifically at residential buildings directly within the line of sight of the rail line and within approx. 50-60m. My measurements started from the west side of Lisgar GO station, the most likely point of divergence of the rail lines, to CP's Toronto Yard. While I can't verified this for 100% certainty, it's relatively easy to discern what constitutes residential property verse commercial or industrial buildings. The same methodology was used to calculate both figures so there should be less of a margin of error when it comes to the % difference between the two figures. Both sides of each rail line were added separately. Of course the risks are somewhat mitigated when a rail line is trenched, like the York sub. in a few areas. Additionally we shouldn't discount risks to property and the occupants of commercial and industrial development along each line.

I came to a rouge calculation of 28,550m of residential frontage for the current CP line. While the total for the missing link came out to 20,420m - includes 530m of back tracking along the Havlock sub which assumes CP's Toronto is still in use, does not include 260m for the trailer park at the Claireville conservation area.

This equates to a reduction of 30%. Certainly the difference is significant, occupant-wise it's likely to be even greater, but 20km of residential frontage is still a very large number. And when it comes to NIMBYism the voices of those who being screwed over always resonates much louder then those who stand to benefit. We need not look back very far back for evidence of such - all the concessions made to the Weston NIMBYs during the (re)building of the Georgetown South corridor or the cancelled GTA gas turbine power plants. If the opposition to the missing link were to gain any kind of momentum in those communities it would make the Weston NIMBY's look like a small pool party compared to Copacabana beach in the middle of the day.
 
I just did a very rudimentary assessment of residential development directly fronting the current CP line and the proposed missing link. [...]
Truly impressed with that, albeit something that mollifies much of the protest is that the present by-pass was designed for that purpose from its inception, and the validity of community protest cannot be as justified as if it were a *new* alignment being used. Were these same people as concerned about Hwy 407 being, effectively, the by-pass for the 401? It's not a direct analogy, but the gist of it is there.

So I started Googling to see if there is an actual study to quantify your point in greater detail, there just might be, but in reading the Missing Link report, I came across this gem of information. One aspect I'd already discovered in the Transportation Act, and posted here two days back, profound powers for the Feds to implement this, but the following shows a second brake shoe to drop! (Pardon the bad formatting, it's from a PDF, and my present Adobe Reader version is a lame one without proper re-formatting available in it: I'll try another program to see if I can reformat this, and sub it in later, meantime, access the link to read the report directly if this is too difficult to read)
[...]
6.1

Interest of the Federal Government

The federal government has a vital interest in the project as well because of:



Its vital interest in the effective functioning of the GTHA, the most important

economic region of Canada;



Its objective to improve international trade through the Continental Gateway

initiative;



Its constitutional responsibility for railways;



The New Canada Building Fund of Infrastructure Canada is a $14 billion component

of the $53 billion New Building Canada Plan for which a project of the nature of the

Missing Link might qualify under three of the four categories of funding assistance

offered.

The federal government will have to be involved, for funding and because of the potential use of

two acts that have been federally legislated.

The first of these acts is the

Canada Transportation Act

(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Sections 138 and 139 of the Act allow the federal government (i.e. the Canada Transportation

Agency

– CTA), on application from a municipal government, to request joint usage by two or

more railways of a common right

-of-way. In doing this the CTA must also provide for fair

compensation to the railways for property and any impacts on operating costs.

The

Railway Relocation and Crossing Act

(RRCA) also allows the CTA to promote the relocation

of railways

upon request from a municipal government. The federal funding for such a venture

would be established separate from granting the authority to proceed.

The web site of the CTA

states:

“If provincial or municipal authorities cannot reach an agreement with a railway

company on the relocation of railway lines, subsection 3(1) of the RRCA

permits an

application to the Agency for an order to carry out an accepted plan. The accepted plan

will facilitate the relocation of specific railway lines or operations around

and away from

an urban area in order to promote urban development. The Minister of Transport,

Infrastructure and Communities may authorize the payment, out of funds set aside by

Parliament, of not more than 50% of the cost of preparing the urban developm

ent plan

or the transportation plan or both.”

The RRCA also permits the federal government to pay up to 50% of the costs of studies and of

implementation of railway relocation. At the present time there is no budget available allocated

to the RRCA which would permit the actualization a project of the scale of the Missing Link but

this would only require an appropriation of funds, not new legislation.

Federal funds could also flow through the use of the New Building Canada Fund. A New

Building Canada grant of up to $2.6 billion was recently announced for the implementation of

SmartTrack which essentially is the upgrading of GO Transit routes to an RER standard. [...]
https://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocuments/Council/agendas2015/rpts2015/ENG-020-15 The Missing Link Final Report.pdf

I hope k10ery sees this, he/she made some very helpful comments a few posts up, and the legal aspects of this need to be highlighted and further researched. (Edit: And the definition of "Governor" in the quote of the Act I produced is rendered moot by the report's wording) The Feds are the 'Missing Link' at this point! Not a word so far...

[The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities may authorize the payment, out of funds set aside by Parliament, of not more than 50% of the cost of preparing the urban development plan or the transportation plan or both.”]

The price of the Link being touted (and it's only a working figure,) is "$5B". If the Feds contribute half that, $2.5B, it sounds like a lot, but in the big scheme of things, it isn't, and it could buy them a whole lot of love! (Community protest besides, which will be offered offsets, some very desirable, like much better GO service).

This could be sold as "Nation Building" (If there's no PR angle, any government nowadays sees no value in it) and in this case, it would be Nation Building! This actually saves in the long-term, and the Liberal Love-Fest would be extended to the Queen's Park branch, they could immediately radically alter their GO projects, and get far more bang for the buck.

This has to happen.
 
Last edited:
I just wonder if/when Toronto gets this - how much of a stink Sudbury raises about it. They've privately been prodding the province and feds for decades over rerouting the CP mainline + yard out of the city. The yard is downtown - and the mainline also goes along side Ramsey Lake.
 
I just wonder if/when Toronto gets this - how much of a stink Sudbury raises about it. They've privately been prodding the province and feds for decades over rerouting the CP mainline + yard out of the city. The yard is downtown - and the mainline also goes along side Ramsey Lake.

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.
 

Top