407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

[steveintoronto]

Which meeting? The Metrolinx Board meeting?

My misunderstanding. Yes.

Under what section of the Act is the Federal government forced to respond to the IBI report that was done for a group of municipalities?

There's a number, all detailed in the IBI report, but directly from the relevant Act, here's one:
[...]
PART IJoint 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: Part 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.
• [...]
• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4/page-2.html#docCont

I'll check the IBI report and detail their quoted references later. I'm exhausted right now, but have detailed the relevant sections extensively in this forum prior.

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

 

[Allandale25]

You answered my question. It says "a municipality may, subject to subsection 4(1), apply to the Agency..." and "The Agency may receive an application".

As best I can tell, the municipalities who paid for the IBI report have received it but haven't formally applied for anything to the Federal government. So at the moment, the Federal government isn't "compelled" to take action. That could change in the future of course.

My misunderstanding. Yes.

There's a number, all detailed in the IBI report, but directly from the relevant Act, here's one:
[...]
PART IJoint 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 noteart 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.
• [...]
• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4/page-2.html#docCont

I'll check the IBI report and detail their quoted references later. I'm exhausted right now, but have detailed the relevant sections extensively in this forum prior.

 

[steveintoronto]

You answered my question. It says "a municipality may, subject to subsection 4(1), apply to the Agency..." and "The Agency may receive an application".

As best I can tell, the municipalities who paid for the IBI report have received it but haven't formally applied for anything to the Federal government. So at the moment, the Federal government isn't "compelled" to take action. That could change in the future of course.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94293.pdf

 

[steveintoronto]

Further to above:
[...]
We must continue to work with our Federal and Provincial governments to improve protections for communities living along rail corridors. I welcome the announcement from the Provincial Government this summer to begin stakeholder consultations to advance the "Missing Link" freight rail bypass. This project provides an unprecedented opportunity to move Canadian Pacific Rail's freight traffic off the CP tracks that run through Toronto. I also welcome Federal Minister of Transport Marc Garneau's expressed openness to enhanced rail safety measures and hisdetailed outline of current federal rail safety enhancements underway in response to the open letter that many City Councillors and Mayor Tory sent earlier this year calling for federal action. You can read the Minster Garneau's full response here.
[...]
http://www.anabailao.com/tags/rail_safety

 

[crs1026]

"Missing Link" was only used in the IBI Report and reference to it. The term is euphemistic. Hopefully we'll find out what the 'discussion' is about.

Apparently the term is also politically sexy. It has recently been seized on by some City Councillors to describe other things eg the unbuilt sections of higher order transit on Sheppard Ave.

All the more reason to get in the habit of calling this project the 407 freight rail bypass. Probably too late to register the Trademark ;-)

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Apparently the term is also politically sexy. It has recently been seized on by some City Councillors to describe other things eg the unbuilt sections of higher order transit on Sheppard Ave.

All the more reason to get in the habit of calling this project the 407 freight rail bypass. Probably too late to register the Trademark ;-)

- Paul

Yeah, it is often put in quotation marks, knowing that it is euphemistic, but it is creeping into a lot of reports. I've just been reading a number of them for definitive answers from the Feds, still looking, lots of indirect positive replies, but that's because the Feds are dancing carefully. In all consideration to Garneau et al, credit to them for being careful, one wrong announcement could complicate things, but the more I read, the more there appears to be an inevitability to this, it just makes so much obvious sense.

I've got this up on my taskbar, but it's too early in the day to wade into it:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/canada-transportation-act-review.html

Just checking through what other hits are on the taskbar, and this mentions "2017" for an answer:

Moving Ahead on the Missing Link

Posted on Transit by Councillor Ana Bailão · July 27, 2016 1:33 PM
Recently, the Province of Ontario and Metrolinx announced an agreement in principle has been reached with Canadian National Rail to initiate further GO Regional Express Rail enhancements along the Kitchener GO Corridor. This agreement also provides a framework to initiate the planning and analysis work needed to advance the "Missing Link" freight rail bypass in consultation with stakeholders and the community. The "Missing Link" project provides an unprecedented opportunity to move Canadian Pacific Rail's freight traffic off the CP tracks that run through Toronto (which form the northern border of Ward 18) and to increase rail safety along this important corridor.

This initiative also opens a new potential for increased transit service in Toronto and across the region. I voted to direct City staff to engage in discussions with stakeholders and government partners to move this important project forward. I look forward to reviewing their feedback when they report to back in 2017.

http://www.anabailao.com/tags/rail_safety

What I have discerned is that the City has reviewed their case and staff feel it complies with the requirements for applying under the Railway and/or Relocations Act.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94293.pdf

 

[Allandale25]

Appreciate all the links but in reading the City's staff report from June 16, 2016, it says they only "requested further consideration" and did say they were formally applying for something under the Act or had prepared an application as outlined in the Act. I'm not disagreeing with what's written in the Act, I'm just pointing out that at the moment, the Council motions, staff reports, and letters/Councillor updates don't refer to the application provisions or the Agency reviewing an application. I assume the public would know if such an application was made.

City staff might "feel" like relocating CP Rail from mid-Toronto might fit under the Act but so far it doesn't look like they've taken the next step. The Minister's response called the City's requests "suggestions" instead of an "application" and the Councillor only references "stakeholder consultations". I haven't heard yet if those have taken place.

View attachment 93570
View attachment 93569
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94293.pdf

 

[steveintoronto]

Appreciate all the links but in reading the City's staff report from June 16, 2016, it says they only "requested further consideration" and did say they were formally applying for something under the Act or had prepared an application as outlined in the Act. I'm not disagreeing with what's written in the Act, I'm just pointing out that at the moment, the Council motions, staff reports, and letters/Councillor updates don't refer to the application provisions or the Agency reviewing an application. I assume the public would know if such an application was made.

City staff might "feel" like relocating CP Rail from mid-Toronto might fit under the Act but so far it doesn't look like they've taken the next step. The Minister's response called the City's requests "suggestions" instead of an "application" and the Councillor only references "stakeholder consultations". I haven't heard yet if those have taken place.

Well, by your own methodology, neither has the Province with CN and the MoU. I'll take Garneau's response as indicative of further study being underway.

 

[crs1026]

It's the kind of political minefield that those 'at a distance' will avoid stepping in unless dragged into it. Look how quickly the road toll proposal was recast as a 905 vs 416 thing.

With all respect to Councillor Bailao, the City is playing with fire by positioning this around rail safety (even if that argument is valid technically). It legitimises the counter argument that Toronto is lobbing its share of safety risk over the fence into the 905. That may actually be prudent, but it will inflame the debate. If railways present risk, it can be argued that each municipality should shoulder its fair share, which Toronto is arguably seeking relief from. Better to make this about better regional transportation - which the 905 is a prime beneficiary of, and leave the safety thing alone.

There is ample evidence that CN at least is negotiating. If the bypass turns out to give CN a new advantage over CP through the region, you can be sure CP won't be slow in signing up to getthe same. @steveintoronto's portrayal of the law suggests that the required support will be there if and when needed. In the meanwhile, sleeping dogs can slumber peacefully.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Well, by your own methodology, neither has the Province with CN and the MoU. I'll take Garneau's response as indicative of further study being underway.

My methodology is stating the public information that's been provided for the bypass and the initial planning/track design work by Metrolinx/CN. You started off by saying the IBI report had "compelled" the Feds to something and citing provisions in the Act which there is no public indication there has been any application for. So, two different approaches. Citing the act is helpful and great. I'm just simply trying to clarify what's the staff reports, media reports, and words from the Councillors actually say, and what's happened since the IBI report.

The Act is great but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves or give the impression things are happening when they aren't.

 

[gweed123]

If CP were to jump on board, how many additional tracks would the Missing Link and York Sub need to accommodate both?

Also, is there the potential for CP to still use the Midtown corridor, then use the Georgetown South corridor between the Junction and the Missing Link? Is there enough capacity on that segment to allow for RER, UP, Via and CP freight? That wouldn't free up the Midtown corridor, but it would free up the Milton corridor, and it would allow CP to maintain operations at its Scarborough yard, if they so chose.

 

[crs1026]

If CP were to jump on board, how many additional tracks would the Missing Link and York Sub need to accommodate both?

Also, is there the potential for CP to still use the Midtown corridor, then use the Georgetown South corridor between the Junction and the Missing Link? Is there enough capacity on that segment to allow for RER, UP, Via and CP freight? That wouldn't free up the Midtown corridor, but it would free up the Milton corridor, and it would allow CP to maintain operations at its Scarborough yard, if they so chose.

The new corridor has been said to give CP and CN two tracks each. IMHO That's an insane amount of capacity at current traffic levels, but it's what the railways would want available for the long term in order to sign up. It doesn't have to all be built right away.

Using the Weston Sub for CP is a non-starter, thanks to the Weston Tunnel. Besides, that capacity is needed for RER and potentially intercity rail. It may be possible to build a connection from the Mactier Sub to the Bypass at Steeles and Islington and run all the CP trains over the bypass and down the MacTier. That would meet the objective of acquiring the Galt Sub without having to buy the North Toronto line at the same time - but would be inconvenient for CP.

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

The new corridor has been said to give CP and CN two tracks each. IMHO That's an insane amount of capacity at current traffic levels, but it's what the railways would want available for the long term in order to sign up. It doesn't have to all be built right away.

Using the Weston Sub for CP is a non-starter, thanks to the Weston Tunnel. Besides, that capacity is needed for RER and potentially intercity rail. It may be possible to build a connection from the Mactier Sub to the Bypass at Steeles and Islington and run all the CP trains over the bypass and down the MacTier. That would meet the objective of acquiring the Galt Sub without having to buy the North Toronto line at the same time - but would be inconvenient for CP.

- Paul

Good info, thanks! Yes, the MacTier sub is an option, but would it be able to handle CP's current traffic without major overhaul? How much of an inconvenience would it be for CP to reroute via MacTier?

If the cost to upgrade MacTier is less than the cost to add extra tracks to the Galt sub, then on paper it's worth it for Metrolinx. Just don't know if CP would go for it, depending on how much of an inconvenience it would actually be.

 

[mdrejhon]

This is one big sleeping dog.

The beginner two CN bypass track simply begins to open a 50-year-long Pandora's Box -- in a manner of speaking.

The Pandora's Box is full of hot potatoes. Lots of political hot potatoes (407, Hydro, NIMBYs, 416-vs-905, claims of boondoggle, CN, CP, Metrolinx, etc) -- more than enough potatoes to make up for the 18th-century Irish Potato Famine. Let's find some good potato recipies.

 

[steveintoronto]

If CP were to jump on board, how many additional tracks would the Missing Link and York Sub need to accommodate both?

For combined operation of both lines at this time? Two, with lay-bys/passing tracks...for *freight*! This is outlined in the IBI report. That's predicated on the most modern signalling and control being in place. Passenger, for regular use, would dictate separate track, and not necessarily paralleled/grouped with the prime two freight ones.

I'll quote references later.

Edit: I'm just glancing in a rush here, getting lunch.

Paul states same on the *practical* side (and there are examples of this in the US midwest and west, where two tracks serves combined competitor operation, and very well)

[IMHO That's (four tracks) an insane amount of capacity at current traffic levels, but it's what the railways would want available for the long term in order to sign up. It doesn't have to all be built right away.]
Paul alludes to the politics and diplomacy needed to deal with the situation. You 'allow' for that much being possible if needed in the future, but meantime plan to build and operate all that's necessary today. If you put yourself in Garneau's shoes, the last place he's going to bargain is in the public realm. It may in fact yet be best that *at least for now* the Feds form a errr..."Toronto Rail Freight Bypass Corp" to own and manage this operation. If CP and CN don't come to some kind of agreement, the Feds either use their own funding sources, or form a consortium with or without CN and CP , and use the Act(s) to enforce compliance with it. This was pretty much done in Ottawa (city proper) with the Capital Commission, albeit there was NYC and a couple of other small operators involved in divesting.

Mandating action will be the last resort though, as it leaves the Feds open to consequences, albeit limited, as detailed in the Acts.

In some respects, the Class 1s might even welcome a mandated decision! At the least it relieves them of some liability issues and puts them on the taxpayer.

Garneau has to play a very careful game on this...