Someone else may know more when a federal or provincial EA has to be used, but I'm just wondering if there are similarities to Bowmanville. In that case, a new track is needed to connect the existing GO Lakeshore East line, across the Oshawa parking lot, to CP's line. I haven't heard or seen any indication in that project that it's going to be a federal EA. Yes, I do realize in the Bowmanville case the connecting track between Lakeshore and CP will only be used by GO trains.
Ah, but the new trackage in Oshawa is only a short distance. The EA rules (I will fish out the link, although I have posted it a couple of times before) only require an EA if more than 16 km's of new right of way is proposed. Adding a second track to a line doesn't force a Federal EA, although a whole new operation arguably might.
Edit - Bowmanville did get a provincial EA, however. The report is
here.
- Paul
So that is new trackage
by Metrolinx, so that plus the implementation of new stations is why an EA was done there. CP is not the proponent, they are just the host railway that Metrolinx needs to negotiate with to realize the vision for their commuter service. It's not a parallel to draw here; this is primarily a freight corridor for private
EA stuff
Provincial notes regarding the provincial TPAP process
here. One interesting note is that it doesn't apply to private sector projects. So, arguably, if CN were the proponent of the bypass, they arguably wouldn't need a Provincial EA. Good luck making that fly without litigation! I suspect CN would have little or no interest in taking this on, with all the heat it would attract.
Federal EA Regulations
here, specifying that a Federal EA is required if
As per my original comment, yes, CN/CP do not require a provincial EA. Looking at the federal rules, it seems that the bypass could hit 32 km, or just be under it. If they want future HSR on it, that could be the trigger too. I think either way, the feds will ask for it, if there isn't a trigger, I'm sure they could demand it somehow through other Ministerial powers, or whomever is doing the EA could do it voluntarily...
Which brings me back to my original point. I'm interested to know who is doing the EA, it would answer a lot of questions I'm sure all UT'ers here have, EA and otherwise.
I think is an error on the map. As is the routing of the existing UP Express spur route.
What the actual hell. I'm not putting too much weight into this, these just look like options which are required for any assessment, but I also imagine sticking to the current corridor is an actual option. I mean, they would actually consider diverting from Mt Pleasant to the north terminus of the Hurontario-Main LRT and call it a day? C'mon. It just seems like a leftover from early day blue sky sketches.
It would also fit with the HSR announcement that they are 'sticking to existing tracks' to get their EA for that done faster, which involves stopping at Malton. So begs the question, why would the province look at a new corridor if the feds are already doing work in the existing corridor? Fixed costs could be covered by the feds, just partner up to shoehorn any GO expansion work in there too and you pay the applicable variable costs. Way cheaper, and it's why the other options wouldn't stand up to an evaluation.
