News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 878     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 353     0 

407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

If ML saying 2024 at the earliest, what is the real time is?? More so, what will this cost do to the whole system when it only will benefit a small section??

Note the comment 4 tracks from Mount Pleasant.

CN is smelling a gold mind coming their way and can sit back waiting for the big bucks roll in.

2030 will come and go with no bypass in place and time to get on upgrading both the KW and Milton line to 4 tracks that can happen in a short time frame at lower cost.
 
Last edited:
Mention in TorSun article today:
[...]...mayor of Mississauga, Bonnie Crombie...also champions what the city’s named The Missing Link, in which it — along with Toronto, Cambridge and Milton — is trying to divert freight traffic from the Canadian Pacific southern rail line in Milton to the north line, and replacing it with commuter trains.[...]
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/30/transit-is-the-missing-piece
 
From Chris Drew on Twitter.

DBRgRUEXkAMWYIT.jpg

DBRgR_lXoAAuNai.jpg

DBRgSiZXUAA9ueM.jpg
 
They should just pull a Tokyo and use eminent domain to convert the rail lines and pay for the construction cost of the bypass only.
 
Kitsune said:
They should just pull a Tokyo and use eminent domain to convert the rail lines...
Click to expand...

I took a quick look and cannot find an example of CN or CP railway corridor being expropriated from those companies for other uses. Plenty of examples of CN/CP going the other direction though, including other railway corridors which fell into disrepair.

The closest you get is Vancouver who, while not expropriating the CP track, zoned adjacent land in such a way that the railway corridor will cannot be used for anything else or add more commercial traffic.


The province cannot tax the railway corridor either BUT they can tax improvements (adjacent support buildings, stations, communications/gas/electrical uses, etc.) at the full commercial rate.
 
rbt said:
I took a quick look and cannot find an example of CN or CP railway corridor being expropriated from those companies for other uses. Plenty of examples of CN/CP going the other direction though, including other railway corridors which fell into disrepair.

The closest you get is Vancouver who, while not expropriating the CP track, zoned adjacent land in such a way that the railway corridor will cannot be used for anything else or add more commercial traffic.


The province cannot tax the railway corridor either BUT they can tax improvements (adjacent support buildings, stations, communications/gas/electrical uses, etc.) at the full commercial rate.
Click to expand...
You are essentially correct, but not in detail. There have been cases, and rather than through the Transportation Act, which has omnipotent powers to do this, the NCC Act has an even more specific power to expropriate, and did so on a large scale in Ottawa (some now claim not for the best in some instances, like the stranded station downtown):
National Capital Act

R.S.C., 1985, c. N-4

An Act respecting the development and improvement of the National Capital Region


[...]
Power to construct railway
  • 13 (1) The Commission may construct in the National Capital Region, in accordance with plans prepared under this Act, a railway and related facilities.

  • Marginal note:Sale, lease, etc.
    (2) The Commission may
    • (a) sell, convey or lease any railway and related facilities, or any portion thereof, constructed pursuant to subsection (1) to any railway company; or

    • Canada Transportation Act
      Canada Transportation Act      , with such modifications as the circumstances require, is applicable to the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, but nothing in this section is deemed to constitute the Commission a railway company except for the purpose of subsection (2).
    • R.S., 1985, c. N-4, s. 13;
    • 1996, c. 10, s. 236.
    Expropriation
    Marginal note:Expropriation
    • 14 (1) Where in the opinion of the Commission the acquisition of any land or interest therein by the Commission without the consent of the owner is required for the purposes of this Act, the Commission shall so advise the appropriate Minister in relation to Part I of the Expropriation Act.

    • Marginal note:Idem
      Expropriation Act, any land or interest therein that, in the opinion of the Minister mentioned in subsection (1), is required for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be land or an interest therein that, in his opinion, is required for a public work or other public purpose, and, in relation thereto, a reference to the Crown in that Act shall be construed as a reference to the Commission.
    • R.S., c. N-3, s. 13;
    • R.S., c. 16(1st Supp.), s. 42.
    • [...]
Click to expand...
  • I believe that expropriation was never actually used for railway RoWs, but still digging on that, the carrot was used rather than the stick to re-draw the rail map of Ottawa. Large swaths of RoWs were attained and many run under NCC ownership as 'Common Carriers' for any and all rail operators until being resold later.
Here was the plan:
https://www.erudit.org/revue/uhr/2001/v29/n2/1019205ar.pdf

upload_2017-6-3_10-17-26.png

upload_2017-6-3_10-18-47.png

[...]
pg 48 of the review.

Expropriation in the case of the GTHA and the Missing Link is the stick. It is possible, but at what cost? No-one in their right minds would undertake such an approach, not to mention it being needless. Given the right offer, (the carrot instead of the stick) all affected interests will reach a deal. Discussed in detail a number of times prior in this string. Pg 40 last time discussed in detail, but many more instances prior to that.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-6-3_10-17-26.png
    upload_2017-6-3_10-17-26.png
    124.7 KB · Views: 263
  • upload_2017-6-3_10-18-47.png
    upload_2017-6-3_10-18-47.png
    70.6 KB · Views: 258
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton said:
It would be nice to some action on this. We need off peak service on Milton.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that Milton had off-peak during the early 90's

It was the first GO Train line other than the Lakeshore line to offer two-way midday service.
Click to expand...

On October 29, 1990, service began on a number of two-way midday runs on the Milton GO line, making Milton the first GO Train line other than Lakeshore to offer train service outside of the rush hour. The goal was to try and reduce the pressure on the Lakeshore GO Train line, especially through Mississauga. Most midday service on the Milton line consisted of a single trainset operating between Union and Erindale stations (with buses connecting passengers to Streetsville, Meadowvale and Milton), with the first outbound trip leaving Union around 8:30 a.m. and the last inbound trip departing Erindale just before the start of the afternoon rush hour. Unfortunately, the additional service didn't last. Budget cuts forced the midday Erindale trains to stop running on January 8, 1996
Click to expand...

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2104.shtml
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
It's really unfortunate. You would think the second busiest line would get priority but this is GO transit.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that the strategy is a bad one. Building the bypass, then encouraging CP to migrate, and then buying the line in its current form might well fit the budget better than an all-out construction program to twin the capacity so that freight and 2-way GO can both use the line.

Sure, every GO line needs some all-day service, but where is the case that says that intensive investment in the Galt Sub would produce the commensurate number of midday riders? The line taps a number of bedroom communties, so peak ridership is enormous.....does that guarantee equal volume at off peak?

Investment in the Newmarket and Stouffville lines may produce more riders for less capital, so it's logical that those are the priorities. And, without getting too political, it would be rash to invest all the available capital in the west side of the GTA but not the north or east.

Of course, when you invest a gob of money in the Weston Sub and then don't run nights and weekends, it's hard to say GO uses its money well, but you get the point.

- Paul
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
It's really unfortunate. You would think the second busiest line would get priority but this is GO transit.
Click to expand...
If only it were that simple. Metrolinx doesn't own the Milton line; it's CP's mainline. It does own most or all of the Stouffville, Lakeshore, Barrie, and Kitchener lines. They get much more bang for their buck investing in the lines that they own and control. RER to downtown Hamilton is problematic for the same reason. You're making it sound like they make decisions by throwing darts at a map.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top