Toronto GO Transit: Davenport Diamond Grade Separation | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

drum118 said:
CP Will not allow a bike path in its corridors.

The corridor is protected for 4 tracks and why the bridge over it is long. When Toronto West Diamond was removed, the bridges over the Weston Sub were build for 4 tracks.

GO has had a vision since the 70's/80's of running service across Toronto in CP Corridor and you need 4 tracks to do it.

If and when it may happen, the 2 rail crossing have been built to handle 4 tracks. Most overpasses while handle 4 tracks, but a number of crossings will have to be grade separate to the point some will have to be close off as there isn't enough room to do it.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I'd love to see the City of Toronto be game for 4 freight tracks.

This midtown GO corridor could have been accomodated by the bypass, and hence only needing 2 tracks, with lots of room to spare for a parallel railpath.

We could go on about it, but I'm loathe to derail this thread any further.
 
Metroscapes said:
Oh yeah, I'd love to see the City of Toronto be game for 4 freight tracks.

This midtown GO corridor could have been accomodated by the bypass, and hence only needing 2 tracks, with lots of room to spare for a parallel railpath.

We could go on about it, but I'm loathe to derail this thread any further.
Click to expand...
Who was there first??

Neither I, you or anyone alive was around when the tracks came to be there in the fist place, but CP still is there who built them in the first place under QC..

Who owns the Land?

CP

Its wishfully thinking that CP will move to CN corridor on CP dime, when it will be everyone dime but CP paying for it.

If Winnipeg who has being trying to make CN move for decades to the point they have given up on the idea, what chance do you think Toronto will have getting CP move??

As far as I am concern, there is enough room in the corridor to allow both CP and GO to run trains on 4 tracks yesterday. Far cheaper to four track CP corridor then try to not only buy the corridor, but to built a major problem corridor.

CP will never need 4 tracks in the first place when there are less trains on the line than 20 or so years ago. They also happen to be almost double the length than the past.

End of the day, Toronto can bitch all it wants to, but CP and the Fed's call the shots, with CP having the final say to a point.
 
drum118 said:
Who was there first??

Neither I, you or anyone alive was around when the tracks came to be there in the fist place, but CP still is there who built them in the first place under QC..

Who owns the Land?

CP

Its wishfully thinking that CP will move to CN corridor on CP dime, when it will be everyone dime but CP paying for it.

If Winnipeg who has being trying to make CN move for decades to the point they have given up on the idea, what chance do you think Toronto will have getting CP move??

As far as I am concern, there is enough room in the corridor to allow both CP and GO to run trains on 4 tracks yesterday. Far cheaper to four track CP corridor then try to not only buy the corridor, but to built a major problem corridor.

CP will never need 4 tracks in the first place when there are less trains on the line than 20 or so years ago. They also happen to be almost double the length than the past.

End of the day, Toronto can bitch all it wants to, but CP and the Fed's call the shots, with CP having the final say to a point.
Click to expand...
Shame that unlike private housing property, there is either no spine or law that allows metrolinx, via or any public transit to reasonably expropriate these rail lines for transit use...I'm sure we have the funds to compensate cp/cn for them
 
cplchanb said:
Shame that unlike private housing property, there is either no spine or law that allows metrolinx, via or any public transit to reasonably expropriate these rail lines for transit use...I'm sure we have the funds to compensate cp/cn for them
Click to expand...
Why do you think governments cannot expropriate rail lines? I think ANY land can be expropriated (under the Ontario or Federal Expropriation Acts) IF the proper steps are taken and, of course, if the full assessed costs can be paid. The Federal Act even allows railways to request the Federal government to expropriate land FOR them. "If a railway company, as defined in section 87 of the Canada Transportation Act, requires an interest in land or immovable real right for the purposes of its railway and has unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the interest or right, the railway company may request the Minister of Transport to have the Minister have the interest or right expropriated by the Crown in accordance with this Part."
 
cplchanb said:
Shame that unlike private housing property, there is either no spine or law that allows metrolinx, via or any public transit to reasonably expropriate these rail lines for transit use...I'm sure we have the funds to compensate cp/cn for them
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there is a precedent for the expropriation 'of' a railway rather than for/by a railway, and I don't know if there is a legislative impediment, and you may be right about the lack of "spine", but the cost would likely give caution. It's not just the land value, but CP, with CN as an ally, would argue that they would need to be 'made whole' in business terms, and expect the government to completely fund any alternative that is completely future-proofed. Sharing mainline trackage with their sole rival is probably not on their preferred list.
 
Hmmm, a quick scan of applicable legislation using key terms bring up the federal Expropriation Act; therein we find this passage:

1687096383640.png


I would suggest a 'clean read' is that the government is specifically empowered to divert a railway for the public good.

One could cast a reasonable inference that this is mostly aimed minor movements within a set corridor, though that would arguably apply here.

In respect of the idea of the wholesale diversion around Toronto; however, the language used doesn't preclude the notion that a public work could be a passenger rail corridor and the diversion could be 100km thataway.
 
I found way better! This is all governed by a specific statute

Railway Relocation and Crossing Act​

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

Railway Relocation and Crossing Act

Federal laws of Canada
laws-lois.justice.gc.ca laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Not only does the government have expropriation powers over railways........it has far more sweeping powers than that!

1687096738772.png


1687096773161.png


What's quite intriguing here is that this process can be initiated by municipalities under the Act, a plan they submit is, however, subject to Federal authorization.
 
We have discussed this at length in other threads. I won't go looking, but while it's clear that there are legal routes to seek public use of privately owned railway land and trackage, three disincentives apply

a) There is no public interest in allowing anyone to disrupt or constrain the capacity and/or effectiveness of our rail freight transportation system, considering just how vital that infrastructure is to our jobs and our supply chains
b) There is no public interest in "poisoning the well" in working relationships with the railways, considering the number of other places and times when their cooperation is essential.
c) As in any other expropriation process, the party whose property is being expropriated has the legal right to seek compensation via a third party tribunal or arbitrator. The lawyer's maxim applies: Don't ask a question unless you are prepared to live with the answer.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
We have discussed this at length in other threads. I won't go looking, but while it's clear that there are legal routes to seek public use of privately owned railway land and trackage, three disincentives apply

a) There is no public interest in allowing anyone to disrupt or constrain the capacity and/or effectiveness of our rail freight transportation system, considering just how vital that infrastructure is to our jobs and our supply chains
b) There is no public interest in "poisoning the well" in working relationships with the railways, considering the number of other places and times when their cooperation is essential.
c) As in any other expropriation process, the party whose property is being expropriated has the legal right to seek compensation via a third party tribunal or arbitrator. The lawyer's maxim applies: Don't ask a question unless you are prepared to live with the answer.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Well it will all depend on how the parties deal with this. Metrolinx can offer the missing link as a compromise or some form of parallel trackage.
 
crs1026 said:
We have discussed this at length in other threads. I won't go looking, but while it's clear that there are legal routes to seek public use of privately owned railway land and trackage, three disincentives apply

a) There is no public interest in allowing anyone to disrupt or constrain the capacity and/or effectiveness of our rail freight transportation system, considering just how vital that infrastructure is to our jobs and our supply chains
b) There is no public interest in "poisoning the well" in working relationships with the railways, considering the number of other places and times when their cooperation is essential.
c) As in any other expropriation process, the party whose property is being expropriated has the legal right to seek compensation via a third party tribunal or arbitrator. The lawyer's maxim applies: Don't ask a question unless you are prepared to live with the answer.

- Paul
Click to expand...
One needs to read the fine print in the original contract to see if these apply at all and if not, be prepared for a long legal battle that will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Far cheaper to add 2-3 tracks to an existing corridor as well doing faster then going the other route from my point of view. Been saying this since 2002 when the Weston Sub was to be upgrade to 2 tracks from the current one, with 3 being built after the EA was approved. Easy to add a 4th with a 5th in a few spots.

It boils down to how much CN/CP wants to have extra tracks and service in their corridor and what the Province is willing to pay for it
 
crs1026 said:
We have discussed this at length in other threads. I won't go looking, but while it's clear that there are legal routes to seek public use of privately owned railway land and trackage, three disincentives apply

a) There is no public interest in allowing anyone to disrupt or constrain the capacity and/or effectiveness of our rail freight transportation system, considering just how vital that infrastructure is to our jobs and our supply chains
b) There is no public interest in "poisoning the well" in working relationships with the railways, considering the number of other places and times when their cooperation is essential.
c) As in any other expropriation process, the party whose property is being expropriated has the legal right to seek compensation via a third party tribunal or arbitrator. The lawyer's maxim applies: Don't ask a question unless you are prepared to live with the answer.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I will add a 4th

d. CN and CP are some of the largest companies in Canada with lobbyist groups in the federal government. CN itself was previously a crown corp and while private now, there are some familial connections to the government that don't die after their sell off.

Forcing CN or CP's hand would be political suicide.
 
robmausser said:
I will add a 4th

d. CN and CP are some of the largest companies in Canada with lobbyist groups in the federal government. CN itself was previously a crown corp and while private now, there are some familial connections to the government that don't die after their sell off.

Forcing CN or CP's hand would be political suicide.
Click to expand...
This 'excursion' started when it was suggested that railway land could not be expropriated. I think we have clarified that it CAN. However, whether any government would actually do so is, as you say, another matter. Time to move on.
 
What’s the timeline for completing the ramp to the guideway for the second track, does anyone know?
 
dowlingm said:
What’s the timeline for completing the ramp to the guideway for the second track, does anyone know?
Click to expand...

There was a timetable released during the earlier construction notices, but it's probably really out of date.

Looking at the bigger picture,, ML does not need the second track over the guideway until there is double track to the south and to the north.... the second track on guideway is not a discrete passing siding.

As I understand it, ML will build the civil works for the double tracking between Sheppard and Bathurst St, but the new Consortium will lay the track and install the signals. That's a couple of years away, and then some.

I suspect the ramps will be done shortly, but in a more liesurely manner.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top