News   Mar 28, 2024
 475     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 316     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 332     0 

407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

Some of the immense powers available to the Feds, continued:
Order following approval
7
For the purpose of carrying into effect a transportation plan accepted by the Agency under section 6, the Agency may, by order, require a railway company to cease to operate over any line within the transportation study area to which the transportation plan relates, and, if considered desirable or expedient, to remove any tracks, buildings, bridges or other structures from the land occupied by the railway company within that area.

  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 7;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359;
  • 1996, c. 10, s. 260.
Marginal note:Order following approval
  • 8 (1) For the purpose of carrying into effect a transportation plan accepted by the Agency under section 6, the Agency may, by order, subject to any requirements imposed by or under the Railway Safety Act,
    • (a) require a railway company to permit the locomotives and trains of another railway company or the equipment of a rapid transit or public transit system to be operated over its lines or right-of-way within the transportation study area to which the transportation plan relates on such terms and conditions in respect of compensation as are set out in the financial plan accepted by the Agency and according to such rules as the Agency may prescribe with respect to those operations;

    • (b) require a railway company to operate only trains carrying such class or classes of traffic over such of its lines within the transportation study area to which the transportation plan relates as may be specified by the Agency;

    • (c) require a railway company to build a railway line in such location as may be specified by the Agency within the transportation study area to which the transportation plan relates, or to make any connections between such railway lines or any rapid transit or public transit systems within the transportation study area as may be specified by the Agency; or

    • (d) require the closing of any existing railway crossing at grade level on any railway line within the transportation study area to which the transportation plan relates if the closing thereof is required under the transportation plan accepted by the Agency.
  • Marginal note:powers to acquire land
    (2) When the Agency makes an order under subsection (1) requiring a railway company to build a railway line or to make any connections between railway lines, all the provisions of law at that time applicable to the taking of land by the railway company, to its valuation and sale and conveyance to the company, and to the compensation therefor, apply to the land required for the proper carrying out of that order.
  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 8;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 116;
  • 1999, c. 31, s. 187(E).
Marginal note:Acquisition of railway land
9
When the Agency makes an order under section 7 requiring a railway company to cease to operate over a line within a transportation study area, the Agency may recommend that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services acquire any land that is or was occupied as part of its railway undertaking by the railway company subject to such conditions as the Agency may prescribe, and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services may acquire such land by purchase or by expropriation under the Expropriation Act.

  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 9;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359;
  • 1999, c. 31, s. 188.
Marginal note:Necessary laws
10
An order under section 7 or 8 shall be issued only after the Agency is satisfied that the government of the province and each municipality that has agreed to the accepted plan have caused such laws to be passed or such orders to be made as are necessary to carry the accepted plan into effect.

  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 10;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359.
Marginal note:power to dispose of property
11
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services may sell or lease or otherwise dispose of any land acquired pursuant to section 9 if that disposition is consistent with the accepted plan and any conditions prescribed by the Agency with respect to the acquisition of the land by that Minister.

  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 11;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359;
  • 1999, c. 31, s. 189.
Marginal note:power to withhold funds
12
If, after accepting a transportation plan under section 6 and making orders under section 7 or 8 in respect thereof, the Agency is given reason to believe that the provisions of the transportation plan are not being carried into effect at the times and in the manner prescribed by the plan, any amounts that may be applied or recommended for payment by the Agency under this Act may be withheld by the Agency or the Minister of Transport until the Agency is satisfied that all reasonable efforts are being made to carry the plan into effect at the times and in the manner prescribed by the plan.

  • R.S., 1985, c. R-4, s. 12;
  • R.S., 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 359.
Marginal note:Recommending relocation grant
  • 13 (1) When an order is made by the Agency under section 7 or 8, the Agency may recommend to the Minister of Transport that a grant, in this Part referred to as a “relocation grant”, be paid to meet part of the costs of implementing the transportation plan accepted by the Agency. [...]
 
I'd guess the reason CP isn't involved is the province doesn't have money to deal with the Milton corridor yet. In fact, it looks like they're going to struggle to finish RER as announced without extra federal help.

This. Plus the reality that while the Feds may have the power to force CP to the table, this would likely involve asking a court to set the purchase price.

The old lawyer's maxim says, never put a question before the court unless you are ready to hear the answer.

A negotiated settlement is always superior to one imposed by a third party. CP's position may change with time, and given the lack of money, there's no hurry just yet.

- Paul
 
This. Plus the reality that while the Feds may have the power to force CP to the table, this would likely involve asking a court to set the purchase price.

The old lawyer's maxim says, never put a question before the court unless you are ready to hear the answer.

A negotiated settlement is always superior to one imposed by a third party. CP's position may change with time, and given the lack of money, there's no hurry just yet.

- Paul
Indeed, albeit costs are detailed in the Relocations Act:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/r-4/page-3.html#docCont

But the bottom line is that the Feds would avoid contention of any sort other than what arbitration could settle. The threat of their power alone is sufficient. The Class 1s would want the Feds to have their backs with labour and other disgruntled parties which always show up in these instances (NIMBYs, etc). Nowhere does this show so much as in the US, where there too the US Feds have forced rationalization on railroads, in many cases saving the companies' lives. Intervention with wads of cash to underwrite change would also help stocks and enable the Class 1s to put vast swathes of property up for sale, (or develop it themselves, both have real-estate arms) a huge cash generator at a time when they need it.

The trick is to talk a deal none of them can walk away from, and that won't be too hard if done right, the present situation is so incredibly entangled and inefficient.

Projects exactly like this are being announced in the US and the UK at this very time, front page news in both nations. Whether Trump is able to back his rhetoric is quite another question...you wouldn't know it from a lot of scare headlines, but both the UK and the US are in much deeper government debt than Canada per capita already. The key words for all nations, though, is "increased productivity".
 
Hearsay doesn't count. John Tory makes all sorts of claims for SmartTrack. Even with Council's backing him, it's still all just talk.

That's why it's helpful to go to these public meetings. You actually get to talk to staff involved in the design and detailed discussions instead of just making guesses. The GO staff last night were more detailed than I expected in the type of work taking place right now which I already covered. It's a much more reliable source than personal opinions or real examples of hearsay.
 
You don't seem to understand. *Your* words are hearsay. I don't mean that in an offensive way, but to illustrate the point, another poster pledged to get the transcript of Desjardins-Siciliano's speech to the Peterborough event on HFR, since even the print media's interpretation of what was said are suspect and not first-person.

You may have heard what you wanted. They may indeed have told you what you wanted to hear. Doesn't mean they stand behind it. There's a reason that contracts are written. A "verbal contract" binding? Sure, as long as you have witnesses who can contribute to the veracity of the claim.
 
You don't seem to understand. *Your* words are hearsay. I don't mean that in an offensive way, but to illustrate the point, another poster pledged to get the transcript of Desjardins-Siciliano's speech to the Peterborough event on HFR, since even the print media's interpretation of what was said are suspect and not first-person.

What part of what I wrote in the other post is hearsay? Here's a definition of hearsay: "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."

I referenced what a GO staff member said, which followed a comment someone posted referencing Robert's comment in Steve Munro's blog. Posting information learned at a public meeting that comes from staff happens all the time on this forum. I can see how repeating a causal conversation could be seen as a rumour, or if it came from a general member of the public and not staff.

Planning and design work is proceeding without CP Rail for the Bramalea to Milton section. I'm simply making the point that design work is proceeding without CP Rail. If the design work is completed and the provincial and federal governments decide to hold funding until CP Rail come to the table, that's a funding and implementation issue, not a design issue. I'm really not sure what your concern is.

I think you're upset that an Agreement in Principle was announced and there has been no progress since then. From what I learned last night, design work is proceeding and detailed discussions with CN Rail are proceeding. Are you suggesting that zero design work can take place until CP Rail is part of the Agreement or the likelihood of any preliminary work taking place is diminished because the governments only what to fund a deal with both freight railways?

In terms of the VIA Rail President's presentation in Peterborough, I believe someone is working to get a copy of the slide deck shown, not a transcript. Unless a member of the media was there who recorded the entire session, I down a transcript is possible at this point.
 
Last edited:
What part if what I wrote in the other post is hearsay? Here's a definition of hearsay: "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor." I referenced what a GO staff member said, which followed a comment someone posted referencing Robert's comment in Steve Munro's blog. Planning and design work is proceeding without CP Rail and for the Bramalea to Milton section. I'm simply making the point that design work is proceeding without CP Rail. If the design work is completed and the provincial and federal governments decide to wait until CP Rail come to the table, that's a funding and implementation issue, not a design issue. I'm really not sure what your concern is.

I think you're upset that an Agreement in Principle was announced and there has been no progress since then. From what I learned last night, design work is proceeding and detailed discussions with CN Rail are proceeding. Are you suggesting that zero design work can take place until CP Rail is part of the Agreement or the likelihood of any preliminary work taking place is diminished because the governments only what to fund a deal with both freight railways?

In terms of the VIA Rail President's presentation in Kitchener, I believe someone is working to get a copy of the slide deck shown, not a transcript. Unless a member of the media was there who recorded the entire session, I down a transcript is possible at this point.
In terms of the VIA Rail President's presentation in Kitchener, I believe someone is working to get a copy of the slide deck shown, not a transcript. Unless a member of the media was there who recorded the entire session, I down a transcript is possible at this point.
You clearly make the point. I stated "Peterborough". You think it was "Kitchener".
You don't seem to understand. *Your* words are hearsay. I don't mean that in an offensive way, but to illustrate the point, another poster pledged to get the transcript of Desjardins-Siciliano's speech to the Peterborough event on HFR, since even the print media's interpretation of what was said are suspect and not first-person.
 
Apologies. Fixed. Also did some other minor updates to the text.
Apology not needed, but accepted anyway. I think Queen's Park have left you and other 'faithfuls' in the lurch. It's now almost six months since the infamous 'announcement', and there's absolutely no update that I can find from repeatedly Googling. Not a word.

So if Wynne at al wish to 'win', they'd better have something to show for it. In print.

Like High Speed Rail, I suspect they're praying that no-one remembers...tum de dum de dum...
 
Apology not needed, but accepted anyway. I think Queen's Park have left you and other 'faithfuls' in the lurch. It's now almost six months since the infamous 'announcement', and there's absolutely no update that I can find from repeatedly Googling. Not a word.

So if Wynne at al wish to 'win', they'd better have something to show for it. In print.

Like High Speed Rail, I suspect they're praying that no-one remembers...tum de dum de dum...

The statements by "Queen's Park", either the people who work there or who serve in office there, are not creating a situation where I'm blinding faithful in following them putting me in a lurch. Since I'm not relying on "Queen's Park" as my only place to get information, I would hope post I made earlier would be understood by fellow users as trying to be helpful and relevant as opposed to blind cheerleading.

A key way to learn more about a project is by attending public meetings where GO Transit/Metrolinx staff are present. Yes, it has been six months since the June 2016 announcement about the Agreement in Principle. Since June, and as previously discussed, Metrolinx provide a map associated with the Kitchener Corridor that showed the bypass (September 2016) which as the first 'official' and non-media/citizen instance, and then Metrolinx's Hurontario LRT Open House included a different version of the map (October 2016).

Other than those two further updates, you are right that there is no further information searchable via Google. That's the benefit of going to in-person meetings in addition to relying on online sources. One can sometimes learn more and have direct conversations with people involved in the design and discussion work on a day-to-day basis. Relying on only online sources can limit the ability to track the status of projects, if that's the goal. The good news is that there will be more public meetings in Brampton when the RER TPAP starts, and when the bypass study process launches.

Speaking of Google and times when it can help, I just did a quick search to see if there were any new articles on the bypass/"Missing Link" I hadn't seen yet and noticed this one from November 2016 which I don't think has been posted here yet.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Google and times when it can help, I just did a quick search to see if there were any new articles on the bypass/"Missing Link" I hadn't seen yet and noticed this one from November 2016 which I don't think has been posted here yet.
Posted a number of times from different sources. Huge surprise there. Any locals affected moved there *after* the CN bypass was built.

It's classic, like complaining about an airport being too noisy when the airport was built half a century prior.

I'm sure they were all protesting too when Hwy 407 went through their area.
 
Last edited:
Posted a number of times from different sources. Huge surprise there. Any locals affected moved there *after* the CN bypass was built.

It's classic, like complaining about an airport being too noisy when the airport was built half a century prior.

I'm sure they were all protesting too when Hwy 407 went through their area.

The sentiment and previous articles have been posted, but this was just providing the most recent example which I don't believe was added here since the article was published. It's also the first one that includes a quote from the Minister, and he likely felt compelled to reply given it's his region.
 
Just following up on earlier concern/statement made that there wouldn't be enough room for a 407 freight bypass and the HuLRT Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF). I was told by a representative of the Mayor of Mississauga's office the following:

With regards to the Missing Link and Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF), our colleagues at Metrolinx have informed us that there are currently no conflicts between the MSF, a freight-bypass and a future 407 Transitway alignment. Functional design work for a freight-bypass has planned for these projects, and subsequent planning would also take the MSF and 407 Transitway into account.
 
Last edited:
Just following up on earlier concern/statement made that there wouldn't be enough room for a 407 freight bypass and the HuLRT Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF), I was told by a representative of the Mayor of Mississauga's office the following:
I made a similar statement sometime ago in the LRT thread.

Who every gets the contract for the LRT must design MOFS to allow for the 407 BRT and the rail bypass ROW that will hold 4 tracks. There is a BRT Station at Hurontario that has to be part of the MOFS design.

The 407 BRT EA is only a matter of time before it brought to the public for feed back between Hurontario-427. I would say off hand, earliest is Jan 2017 to March.
 
I made a similar statement sometime ago in the LRT thread.

Your first statement on this was "The maintenance yard will be next to the 407, laving no room for the proposed bypass tracks for CN" in this post in the HuLRT thread from October 18th, so the information I just posted above clarifies that matter.

Who every gets the contract for the LRT must design MOFS to allow for the 407 BRT and the rail bypass ROW that will hold 4 tracks. There is a BRT Station at Hurontario that has to be part of the MOFS design.

The 407 BRT EA is only a matter of time before it brought to the public for feed back between Hurontario-427. I would say off hand, earliest is Jan 2017 to March.

There is a public feedback opportunity on the 407 Transitway in December. Details here. They are doing a "Public Study" right now before launching the "Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP)". The study area is from Hurontario to the 400 as indicated here.
 

Back
Top