407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

[Allandale25]

^ Markham and York Region have already strongly expressed their views. Maybe to some that's "getting in the way" but is it a surprise that they have commented? If we're looking at it through the lens of entities "getting in the way", CN, which owns the York Sub that would be required to divert CP trains, said this (previously posted here):

"In discussions held earlier this year, senior CN staff indicated to senior Regional representatives that CN was also opposed to any connection between the
CP/Milton rail line and the CN-York mainline."

Source: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...s-the-missing-link.10009/page-48#post-1269815

 

[TOareaFan]

^ Markham and York Region have already strongly expressed their views. Maybe to some that's "getting in the way" but is it a surprise that they have commented? If we're looking at it through the lens of entities "getting in the way", CN, which owns the York Sub that would be required to divert CP trains, said this (previously posted here):

"In discussions held earlier this year, senior CN staff indicated to senior Regional representatives that CN was also opposed to any connection between the
CP/Milton rail line and the CN-York mainline."

Source: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...s-the-missing-link.10009/page-48#post-1269815

So, is the bypass “worth it” to governments if it only improves the Kitchener corridor and not the Milton one? How would that look?

 

[Allandale25]

So, is the bypass “worth it” to governments if it only improves the Kitchener corridor and not the Milton one? How would that look?

It's a relevant question in terms of value. Some would argue that the benefits for the Kitchener Line and HSR would justify spending $2.2B (miniumum) for the Bypass and associated upgrades between Bramalea and KW. It would also avoid the backlash and local opposition in York Region. Others may suggest that it makes more financial sense to spend $5.3B and help both the Kitchener Line and the Milton Line, and that Mississauga shouldn't be left out.

There's a lot of political pressure in KW and along the Kitchener Line for more service. OLP and the PCs support the EA for HSR which will need the Bypass. So, the value question may have already been decided. Or, there's enough momentum on the side that moving forward to help just the Kitchener Line is good enough for now.

 

[crs1026]

So, is the bypass “worth it” to governments if it only improves the Kitchener corridor and not the Milton one? How would that look?

Same issue we are having in the London HSR discussion, and have had elsewhere (Davenport overpass and Gardiner tolls being other examples).

With infrastructure, the impacts may land in one place and the benefits may turn up somewhere else.

The wrong response is to say "well the benefits outweigh the costs, so it's going in" and just ram the thing forward. That's an abuse of power and leaves bitterness.

The equally wrong response is for government to say "There's an impact, we better not do that". Now we don't have the infrastructure that we need.

Politicians take the easy route and say "OK, we have to impact you with X, so we are giving you Y as a consolation prize". So Markham gets the added freight traffic, but the next week they get a sports stadium, or something else they covet. No one trusts decisionmaking that is based on dealmaking in a back room.

Which gets us to the EA approach which says, "What are the impacts, what will it take to mitigate them, and if we exhaust the possible mitigation, is the impact acceptable?" Which is technocratic, and makes consultants rich. Not much political satisfaction produced.

I do blame the media (and the political mindset) for some of the problem. A newspaper headline that reads "Residents seek mitigation of adverse impacts" won't sell many papers. The editor will insist the headline reads "Residents vow to stop railway line". Journalism shapes the issue to an extreme instead of a compromise. Politicians get more praise (and higher attendance at town hall meetings) if they make the "fight on the beaches" speech.

Anyways, my point remains - study the thing well, identify the impacts, expect to have to spend money on mitigation to minimise the impact. But do it, and maybe offer a sweetener or two. Nobody in Oxford County is complaining about the farmland lost when the CAMI plant was built.

- Pau

 

[Allandale25]

^ Good points, Paul.

 

[gweed123]

Anyways, my point remains - study the thing well, identify the impacts, expect to have to spend money on mitigation to minimise the impact.

I'd prefer the carrot approach initially (as you suggest), but if Markham continues to be obstructionist, Metrolinx/the Province may have to resort to the stick in order to actually get this thing built.

 

[Allandale25]

^ As best I can tell, there is technically nothing stopping Metrolinx/CN from proceeding with Bramalea-Milton tracks to benefit the Kitchener Corridor since there would be no changes to the CN York Sub. It's more of a political question of "should they" do it, without the benefits to the Milton Corridor/CP/using the York Sub.

As it stands now, it appears they are moving ahead and not waiting for CP. So, Markham doesn't need to be obstructionist unless something changes. It can move ahead without York Region being concerned.

 

[robmausser]

So, is the bypass “worth it” to governments if it only improves the Kitchener corridor and not the Milton one? How would that look?

It doesn't just benefit Kitchener and Milton.

It opens up opportunities for improved transit in other areas, south of York region and south of Markham. It would help open up GO rail on the Bolton corridor as well as the Seaton/Midtown corridor.

 

[crs1026]

^ As best I can tell, there is technically nothing stopping Metrolinx/CN from proceeding with Bramalea-Milton tracks to benefit the Kitchener Corridor since there would be no changes to the CN York Sub. It's more of a political question of "should they" do it, without the benefits to the Milton Corridor/CP/using the York Sub.

As it stands now, it appears they are moving ahead and not waiting for CP. So, Markham doesn't need to be obstructionist unless something changes. It can move ahead without York Region being concerned.

There need not be actual progress with CP, but there needs to be a rough-in of property rights. That can't be ignored otherwise ML will end up in exactly the situation that they are with the Halton.... wanting to move ahead but CN not ready to agree.

Asking CN to grant an easement to its competitor CP on its existing CN-owned bypass is a very big ask in a commercial world, It's like asking Pepsi to stock Coke in the cafeteria in its bottling plants. A joint bypass makes intellectual sense but this is business, not academic debate. Ontario needs to have CN's agreement from the get-go that it will not oppose this. In railway space, interesting things are done to create absolute barriers to protect proprietary interests ....one example being CN retaining the first quarter mile or so of the Weston Sub east from Halwest.

The purchase of the CP North Toronto line is different than the CN Halton line because it is much longer (Milton to Agincourt plus Woodbridge to West Toronto) and arguably has a much higher market value (CP will undoubtedly value it on the basis of sale for redevelopment versus sale as a going concern rail line..... and who knows what a court might agree to on that point). Ontario has no money for a purchase of that magnitude until after RER, DRL, and maybe HSR are paid for.

So, realistically, we are 15-20 years from that first CP train taking the bypass...but we need that legal right established now. We can't treat CP as a bridge to be crossed later, even if we aren't actioning it yet. To that end, we have to let Markham and Vaughan have their say now, and give them an answer now.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

It's a huge impediment, but railways are incredibly frugal. The railways have a very hardnosed approach to gaining efficiencies.

Ten years ago CN's Bala Sub from Doncaster to South Parry - 130 miles - had 11 sidings all roughly 6300-6700 feet long. There was a small amount of double track south of Elgin (Richmond Hill) which GO paid for. Today, there are only two long sidings, one at Brechin East and one at Medora, each roughly 13,ooo feet. The others are mostly still there but the longer trains can't use them.

Across Northern Ontario, there are only nine long sidings between Transcona East and Sudbury, with a little bit of double track around Hornepayne and on the east approach to Winnipeg. There were roughly 100 "short" sidings of 6000-7000 feet, which again still exist and see some use but don't help with the long trains.

That's a huge reduction in how many trains can use the line at one time, and it's a huge reduction in the ability to add even one additional train to the route. (As recent experience with VIA shows). But running only half as many trains to move the same volume (hence reducing labour and other costs) for an expense of only that little amount of siding extension has proved extremely good for the bottom line.

How do they manage operationally? They time the meets very carefully. Rather than have one train sitting in the siding blocking crossings while waiting for the other train to arrive, they coordinate so that trains "hang back" where there is room on the mainline until the opposing train gets close to the meeting point. Or, they have one long train leave half its train in one siding and half in the next. When the opposing train has passed, the first train has to backtrack to pick up its tail end. That's hugely inefficient, but it beats investing capital. (Between 2009 and 2016, CN did add around 52 miles of double track to its Winnipeg-Edmonton line, because the growth in traffic is so heavy and can be depended on for the required payback period.)

That meet-when-it's-convenient approach works with freight, but it won't work with a GO train.

- Paul

To add...

The railways, while incredibly frugal, are also willing to think out of the box if necessary to help manage costs but improve throughput.

CN and CP have 2 locations across Canada - one in BC approaching Vancouver, and the other between South Perry and Sudbury - where they have agreed to share their lines. They will run trains in one direction on one railroad, and the other direction on the other railroad. Of course, this is only possible where the mains are close enough to build connecting tracks between them, where there isn't any need for online switching, and where it isn't cost effective to increase capacity on their own lines. But by doing this, they have been able to greatly increase their capacities on their respective lines.

(Of course, this is all negated when one of the railroads chooses to run ACOT - Against Current Of Traffic - for any number of different reasons. But this isn't an overly common occurance.)

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

There need not be actual progress with CP, but there needs to be a rough-in of property rights. That can't be ignored otherwise ML will end up in exactly the situation that they are with the Halton.... wanting to move ahead but CN not ready to agree.

- Paul

Fully agree. We've I've spoken to GO staff about this (and it may have been mentioned in a presentation to Waterloo Region Council, or at a Metrolinx Board meeting, they are aware they have to protect the corridor for more than just two freight rail tracks.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Fully agree. We've I've spoken to GO staff about this (and it may have been mentioned in a presentation to Waterloo Region Council, or at a Metrolinx Board meeting, they are aware they have to protect the corridor for more than just two freight rail tracks.

I think it was established that Mx was planning for 6 tracks? I think consensus here was at least 2 for CN and CP each, and then some debate ensued about the remain 2 were for.

 

[mdrejhon]

I think it was established that Mx was planning for 6 tracks? I think consensus here was at least 2 for CN and CP each, and then some debate ensued about the remain 2 were for.

6 track is simply protecting-for.

The Missing Link can accomodate both CN and CP but will likely probably accomodate only CN at first.

Room for 6 tracks, probably overpasses/underpasses prebuilt for four, but only 2 tracks actually laid at first. Missing Link will essentially be an incremental expansion.

My impression of staging is building the CN minimum (Completed NET 2025, probably by 2031) and begin building the CP minimum (Completed NET 2031, possibly late 2040s-2050s). The CP addon costs much more due to the need to widen an existing connecting CN corridor to accomodate the extra CP traffic that goes over the Missing Link. Plus two more protected for eventual passenger traffic.

Reasons:
- CN agreement in principle
- CN relative simplicity compared to CP
- Kitchener All Day GO promises
- High Speed Rail EA under way
- Major electrificafion congruences (VIA, HSR, GO) favours CN solution first
- Milton RER is sadly mentioned as "After 2041" in Metrolinx 2041 RTP

Prediction Bypass Stage 1
- 2022: Electioneering triggers construction of Missing Link for CN minimum (~$2.2B) granted after Missing Link EA
- 2025: 2 Tracks open, CN redirects freight trains
- Delays to 2031: Politics and engineering challenges could drag this to early 2030s, given electrification

Prediction Bypass Stage 2
- 2030-2040: Huge push for Milton RER triggers track addition to Missing Link for CP
- 2040-2050: 3rd and 4th tracks in bypass opens, CN corridor expanded to CP railyard.
- 2050s: Milton RER achieved

Desk headbanging for Milton commuters, I know - but it is the unmistakable direction I see in documents and politics now.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Agree with all of the above, Mark. Only slight change is that I'd put the 2022 cost closer to $2.2B since that's what has been published at the moment. I do agree it could go up. The $5.3B is what IBI Group quoted for the full Missing Link/CP included/changes to the York Sub.

 

[crs1026]

The $5.3B is what IBI Group quoted for the full Missing Link/CP included/changes to the York Sub.

Trying to remember - is the $5.3B just the cost of construction, or does it include the net cost of purchasing the CP line? (Obviously, I'm doubting that the deal will be a straight swap!)

- Paul