[Allandale25]

That's to satisfy the "caveats" I referred to. Every application prior to do this has been accepted and funded, albeit changes may have been made.

Maybe Milton/Mississauga will make an application when the EA starts. Haven't done so yet. No indication the media or anyone has asked if they even will.

 

[steveintoronto]

Maybe Milton/Mississauga will make an application when the EA starts. Haven't done so yet. No indication the media or anyone has asked if they even will.

They have no choice. You can't just build a new rail line (beyond what constitutes a spur of limited length) without CTA and Transport Canada approval. What's astounding is that this has been talked about for years now, and that's all it remains: Talk.

I fault all involved, and much of it is purposeful obfuscation.

Here's an example just two months ago:

Regina mayor proposes city consider relocating Ring Road rail lines

Mayor Fougere says relocation may be most efficient way to solve daily Ring Road traffic woes
Joelle Seal · CBC News · Posted: Mar 27, 2018 8:57 AM CT | Last Updated: March 27

A railway crossing meets Regina's Ring Road near Winnipeg Street. (CBC)
Regina's mayor wants the city to consider relocating the two rail lines that cross the Ring Road.

Mayor Michael Fougere brought forward a motion to city council last night to look for solutions to the traffic problems caused by the rail crossings.

• Train crossing halts Regina traffic for 1.5 hours

• Railway crossing overpass considered for Ring Road

His motion originally proposed a feasibility study consider an overpass or underpass for those crossings. But last night, he added he would also like the study to consider relocating those two lines.

Fougere said it may be more efficient to do it this way.

"Not a day goes by that we don't hear that there's been a delay on Ring Road," said Fougere to city council.

The Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific (CP) lines are located on the Ring Road between McDonald Street and Winnipeg Street.

Regina Mayor Michael Fougere added an amendment to his motion looking for traffic solutions for Ring Road rail crossings. He wants the city to consider the feasibility of relocating the two rail lines. (CBC News)
The area sees 63,000 vehicles pass through per day. Fougere added that on the CP line, 10 trains cross Ring Road per day while on the CN line, it's six trains per day.

"That is a safety issue. It is also a frustration issue," said Fougere.

He said there have been eight separate collisions in the area from 2009 to 2018.

"What I want to do is provide the widest possible scope for this review to see what works best," said Fougere.

• Saskatoon chooses relocation — not over or underpass — to address traffic delays from trains

"On its face, it would seem that an underpass or overpass would work. Relocating those lines likely would be the most efficient."

City council agreed with the mayor that the study should consider all options. It's expected the feasibility study will be complete in about a year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/fougere-rail-line-relocation-1.4594897

Although the pertaining acts aren't mentioned in this article, they are elsewhere.

Saskatoon considering same:

[...]
The rail lines could potentially be relocated north of the city, or to three separate locations to the south: one several kilometres away from city limits, one only a couple of kilometres away, and one rail line which would co-share the current CN corridor south of the city.

"We'd also gain some land back and the Sutherland yards could potentially be redeveloped," said Magus.

The cost of relocation is estimated at $590 million, while the benefits are estimated at approximately $4 million.

The city has an informal "rail working group," according to Magus, which includes city staff, business community representatives and rail companies. [...]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/rail-relocation-train-delays-1.4566038

 

[Allandale25]

They have no choice. You can't just build a new rail line (beyond what constitutes a spur of limited length) without CTA and Transport Canada approval. What's astounding is that this has been talked about for years now, and that's all it remains: Talk.

So are you expecting that the municipalities of Brampton, Halton Hills, Guelph and Kitchener (and or their Regions) will make an application to the CTA for the CN-only bypass between Bramalea-Milton that'll relieve the Kitchener Line (CN Halton Sub between Bramalea and Georgetown)?

 

[steveintoronto]

So are you expecting that the municipalities of Brampton, Halton Hills, Guelph and Kitchener (and or their Regions) will make an application to the CTA for the CN-only bypass between Bramalea-Milton that'll relieve the Kitchener Line (CN Halton Sub between Bramalea and Georgetown)?

They can, but the Province should be doing it on their behalf. Metrolinx would be especially germane to doing so, but alas...

• 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.

Railway Relocation and Crossing Act

Here's yet another example of citing the Act:
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 WHITE ROCK COUNCIL VOTE TO INITIATE THE RELOCATION OF THE BNSF RAIL LINE AWAY FROM THE WATERFRONT

ANALYSIS OF RAIL RELOCATION BY MARY-JANE BENNETT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK

OCTOBER 15, 2014 Mary-Jane Bennett Transportation Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia Canada mjanebennett@gmail.com

https://www.whiterockcity.ca/assets/Community/Documents/2 - White Rock (October 16 - 1209)MC Edits -jm2.pdf

Her credentials:

Professional qualifications: I am a lawyer by training and have practiced law in both Manitoba and British Columbia. I had a litigation oriented practice and was involved on a number of constitutional cases, including two argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. In January, 1998, I was appointed a Board Member with the Canadian Transportation Agency, a position I maintained for nine years and five months (1998-2007). The Canadian Transportation Agency is a quasi judicial tribunal and economic regulator; it makes decisions on matters in rail, air and marine transportation under the Canada Transportation Act. I am aware of the history and relevance of rail regulatory policy in the national transportation policy. I have adjudicated on that policy in decisions while with the Agency. I have written a number of policy papers on transportation issues relevant to Canada, including a recent paper on the issue of risk in the transportation of dangerous goods. The transportation policy papers that I have written are:
[...]

Gosh, do you think the GTA, Province or Metrolinx might be able to retain someone of this stature? Maybe we can't do things of consequence in this region anymore:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The BNSF rail line, connecting Seattle, WA with Vancouver, B.C., runs directly through the heart of White Rock, B.C. In the past decade, the scenic, coastal community has seen a surge in freight rail traffic and a sharp increase in the shipment of dangerous goods. On September 8, 2014, White Rock City Council, responding to safety concerns relating to the spike in rail traffic, passed a unanimous resolution directing staff to initiate the relocation of the BNSF rail line away from the city’s waterfront. This study responds to that resolution. It seeks to inform on the City of White Rock’s proposed relocation process by providing insight into the City’s application for relocation under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.R-4. It will instruct City Council on key timelines, and will initiate a dialogue pertaining to cost sharing. Finally, it will propose a series of next steps. Some of the issues addressed in the study include: capital costs relating to construction, process management as well as environmental, planning and design concerns. The report also explains key definitions relating to railway relocation and provides an overview of relevant operational and maintenance costs.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Thanks. So, if Milton/Mississauga want CP to co-locate and share the tracks with CN on the CN York Sub, they will have to apply to the CTA. But Metrolinx will handle any application, if necessary, for the CN Rail-only bypass, for Brampton, Halton Hills, Guelph, Kitchener.

 

[steveintoronto]

Further to the above, here's a failed application to the CTA for noise abatement in 2015:
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/21-r-2015

But it seems that the people and governance of White Rock are made of sterner stuff than what we have in the GTA, and note who backs them:

City eyes BNSF to pay share of rail move

White Rock, Surrey, province await federal funds to begin year-long assessment of relocation

• ALEX BROWNE
• Aug. 17, 2017 4:20 p.m.

• The City of Surrey is hoping for a spring 2018 to March 2019 timeline for a study – jointly funded by Surrey, White Rock and the federal and provincial governments – on relocating the BNSF route off the Semiahmoo Peninsula waterfront, Surrey transportation manager Jaime Boan said.

That is what the city included in its $300,000 grant application made to the federal Rail Safety Improvement Program (RSIP) on Aug. 1, he said Thursday, adding that a response is expected sometime this fall.

“Historically, projects like this are funded one-third provincially, one-third federally and one-third locally,” Boan said, adding the city is “optimistic” the federal component will be approved.

Federal transportation minister Marc Garneau encouraged Surrey to apply for the RSIP funding in a letter to Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner last December, he noted.

The split for local funding for the study, as suggested by Surrey, would call for $75,000 from White Rock to Surrey’s contribution of $225,000, Boan said.

Mayor Wayne Baldwin told Peace Arch News earlier this week that White Rock remains committed to studying the issue of relocating the route – adding that he can envision a new route travelling along Highway 99, for which the railway might shoulder “a substantial amount” of the cost.

However, the city will be watching Surrey’s progress with the federal grant before finally committing to costs for the study, Baldwin said.

“We’re letting them take the lead,” he said. “When they (get the grant) we’ll have to work out the numbers.”

The idea of relocating the shoreline BNSF route – raised by the cities of Surrey and White Rock in a joint community forum hosted by then-Surrey mayor Dianne Watts and Baldwin in 2013 – was the subject of a series of hearings before the federal Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in Ottawa last year, held at the urging of Watts, now MP for South Surrey-White Rock.

Representatives of BNSF participated in those hearings, and have requested to be included in the proposed study, Boan said.

Speaking before council in 2014, Baldwin made what he said was “a rough guess” that the BNSF trains could be relocated off the waterfront “in five years.”

The same year, Hepner – who had earlier, as a council member, said that talk of relocation was “premature” – made it a platform priority when campaigning in Crescent Beach as the Surrey First candidate for mayor.

The scope of the provincial contribution to the study has yet to be confirmed, Baldwin said Wednesday, although a letter from then-B.C. transportation and infrastructure minister Todd Stone to Garneau in February of this year expressed provincial support for the latest initiative by Surrey and White Rock.

“The provincial government has been invited to participate all along,” Baldwin noted. “But, at this stage of the game, while they’ve said they support it, no firm numbers have been given.”

Baldwin said the terms of the study will not only include identifying a potential alternative route for BNSF’s Seattle to Vancouver traffic – “obviously, it’s going to be in Surrey” – but also an assessment of the economic case for relocation.

“We have to look at whether it makes financial sense for BNSF to move it,” Baldwin added.

“If it would make sense for them, they would pay a substantial amount of the cost,” he suggested, although he noted the final determination of how the project would be funded, taking into account costs and benefits of possible realignment options, would be left in the hands of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Baldwin also said the study would determine whether the existing line itself, or the route would be relocated off the waterfront.

“We’d be looking at a new rail bed, and the preferred route would probably travel all the way up Highway 99 and through the tunnel,” he said.

“It all depends on the economics and what the best route would be, although (travelling along the highway) would probably present the least amount of issues – nobody wants a railway running through their backyard.”

He said he notes some support for this option south of the border.

“The Washington State Department of Transportation shows it as a preferred route from their point of view, as the shortest distance between Vancouver and Seattle – they’ve also been talking about high-speed trains.”

Boan said he sees the proposed study as “taking a fresh look at all the options” and then screening them down, through public and stakeholder consultation, to a single best option.

But even if the federal funds don’t come through, he said, he expects that Surrey and White Rock will; “continue to pursue the idea of rail relocation.”

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/city-eyes-bnsf-to-pay-share-of-rail-move/

Addendum: RE: RSIPs:

Apply for RSIP-ITR funding
From Transport Canada
[...]
We are currently accepting applications for ITR projects starting in 2019-2020. The deadline for applications is August 1, 2018.


The ITR component of the Rail Safety Improvement Program (RSIP) funds rail safety improvements:

• along rail lines
• on rail property under federal and provincial jurisdiction

Funding is also available for researching, testing and developing technology to enhance the safety of rail line infrastructure.

Eligibility for funding
Eligible recipients include:

• provinces, territories, municipalities, and local governments
• road and transit authorities
• Crown Corporations
• for-profit and not-for-profit organizations
• Indigenous groups, communities and organizations
• individuals

Eligible projects
Your project is eligible for this funding if it aims to:

• address rail line safety issues
• reduce the number of injuries and deaths from accidents along rail lines and on rail property

For example, we will consider these types of projects:

• safety improvements on rail property and along rail lines, including:
  • replacing incandescent lights with light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
  • installing flashing lights, bells, and/or gates
  • separating railway crossing grades
• use of innovative technologies, including:
  • detection technologies:
    • acoustic train sensors
    • positive train control technologies
    • wheel-impact load detectors
    • kinetic energy captures
  • onboard data recorders, including wireless status recorders for active warning systems
  • communications protocols (for example, WiFi)
  • connected Rail
• research related to:
  • restricting pedestrian access
  • blocked crossings
• closures of crossings

For more examples, see the Applicant's Guide.
[...]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/rail/apply-rsip-itr-funding.html

Anyone know if this has been applied for by any of the GTHA governments?

 

[dowlingm]

Where in the relocations act does it cover the reaction of hundreds of thousands of Torontonians, Richmond Hillers and Markhamites to the thought of CP oil trains being moved from tony Summerhill and Governors Bridge to their area? This is a different business to the BNSF project.

 

[Allandale25]

^ The CN York Sub is closer to Vaughan/Markham than Richmond Hill. Plus, specifically in Toronto, it would be near Etobicoke North where the next future Premier's riding might be...

 

[steveintoronto]

Where in the relocations act does it cover the reaction of hundreds of thousands of Torontonians, Richmond Hillers and Markhamites to the thought of CP oil trains being moved from tony Summerhill and Governors Bridge to their area? This is a different business to the BNSF project.

It's in there, I've linked the Act a number of times, and mentioned (gist) "Problematic" and "York Region" a number of times. York Region is the only upper-level muni that has expressed concerns.

In the event of a CN only bypass, the freight traffic through York Region remains the same, it's in Milton and Brampton (lower level municipalities) that a diversion would occur and both are fully for it, in fact have pioneered and hosted the studies. Their upper tier munis (regions) are also highly supportive. And why wouldn't they be? It takes freight off of a line adjacent to urban density, and puts it in a communication/transportation corridor (#407) where it not only belongs, but can transit faster and safer, and releasing the existing Northern Mainline for passenger with a sprinkling of freight, and probably electrification at least to K/W.

Addendum:

Here's the York Region 80 page report on the original comprehensive CP + CN bypass:

[...continues 80 pages...]
http://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect/...1911c3ed7/oct+5+jankowski+new.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Here's a Brampton news report on the CP inclusive plan, which is not being touted at this time:

York Region Is Trying to Kill Brampton’s Chance at Two-Way All-Day GO Service to Toronto

By
Divyesh Mistry
November 14, 2017
[...]
Residents in Thornhill have brought a 600-signature petition to the attention of York Region’s council in opposition to the plan.
[...]
The group, called “Public Transparency 4 Freight Trains”, would like to make clear that they “have no opposition to the ‘agreement in principal’ with CN Rail and Metrolinx to add all day, two-way Go Train service to Brampton and to the residents along the Kitchener Line. This will not impact York Region communities.”
[...]
Residents in York Region have also supposedly gained support from six Liberal and Conservative MPs and MPPs, including Ontario Minister of Transportation Stephen Del Duca in their quest to keep increased freight traffic out of the southernmost part of York Region.

http://bramptonist.com/york-region-brampton-two-way-all-day-go-toronto/

The Transportation and Relocation Acts still pertain for the CN only bypass, in fact pertain unopposed for relocation, and this makes the legal logistics of petitioning for application much better, while still leaving the opportunity for CP to relocate later if conditions become favourable.

Meantime, *even if CN is unwilling to initially participate* a line can be financed and built without them, unopposed by the munis affected and in fact supported by them and the Province. This would be a compelling case that the Feds might not be able to resist acting on if the CTA approves application. CN, as has been the case in many decisions over the decades, would then be ordered to divert their traffic over the common-carrier bypass. CN would be foolish not to be involved from the start on it.

The Fed move on the Kinder-Morgan pipeline, whether one agrees with it or not, sets a precedent for which petitioning the CTA is vastly more clear legally and logically, and arguably just as much or more in the economic interests of the nation, and as it stands, cheaper and vastly more enticing to private investment.

Pay special note to this from the latter quote above:
"Residents in York Region have also supposedly gained support from six Liberal and Conservative MPs and MPPs, including Ontario Minister of Transportation Stephen Del Duca in their quest to keep increased freight traffic out of the southernmost part of York Region."

That might be about to change, radically.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Milton is for the Missing Link version which includes CP Rail. Brampton is for the Bypass version, as noted in staff reports, which only requires CN Rail. Brampton probably wouldn't care if it was for CP and CN Rail since the Kitchener Line is relieved at a minimum.

 

[gweed123]

^ Milton is for the Missing Link version which includes CP Rail. Brampton is for the Bypass version, as noted in staff reports, which only requires CN Rail. Brampton probably wouldn't care if it was for CP and CN Rail since the Kitchener Line is relieved at a minimum.

CN only is fine with Brampton and York Region, but does nothing for Mississauga. CN+CP is fine with Brampton and Mississauga (and I assume Toronto), but is opposed by York Region. Not a great situation to be in.

 

[Allandale25]

^ It's a fine situation to be in for Brampton, Halton Hills, and Kitchener as long as the bypass gets funding and CN agrees to it.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

It's in there, I've linked the Act a number of times, and mentioned (gist) "Problematic" and "York Region" a number of times. York Region is the only upper-level muni that has expressed concerns.

In the event of a CN only bypass, the freight traffic through York Region remains the same, it's in Milton and Brampton (lower level municipalities) that a diversion would occur and both are fully for it, in fact have pioneered and hosted the studies. Their upper tier munis (regions) are also highly supportive. And why wouldn't they be? It takes freight off of a line adjacent to urban density, and puts it in a communication/transportation corridor (#407) where it not only belongs, but can transit faster and safer, and releasing the existing Northern Mainline for passenger with a sprinkling of freight, and probably electrification at least to K/W.

Addendum:

Here's the York Region 80 page report on the original comprehensive CP + CN bypass:
View attachment 145835
[...continues 80 pages...]
http://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect/...1911c3ed7/oct+5+jankowski+new.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Here's a Brampton news report on the CP inclusive plan, which is not being touted at this time:

http://bramptonist.com/york-region-brampton-two-way-all-day-go-toronto/

The Transportation and Relocation Acts still pertain for the CN only bypass, in fact pertain unopposed for relocation, and this makes the legal logistics of petitioning for application much better, while still leaving the opportunity for CP to relocate later if conditions become favourable.

Meantime, *even if CN is unwilling to initially participate* a line can be financed and built without them, unopposed by the munis affected and in fact supported by them and the Province. This would be a compelling case that the Feds might not be able to resist acting on if the CTA approves application. CN, as has been the case in many decisions over the decades, would then be ordered to divert their traffic over the common-carrier bypass. CN would be foolish not to be involved from the start on it.

The Fed move on the Kinder-Morgan pipeline, whether one agrees with it or not, sets a precedent for which petitioning the CTA is vastly more clear legally and logically, and arguably just as much or more in the economic interests of the nation, and as it stands, cheaper and vastly more enticing to private investment.

Pay special note to this from the latter quote above:
"Residents in York Region have also supposedly gained support from six Liberal and Conservative MPs and MPPs, including Ontario Minister of Transportation Stephen Del Duca in their quest to keep increased freight traffic out of the southernmost part of York Region."

That might be about to change, radically.

This is from last november. The situation will change, especally with del duca gone.

 

[steveintoronto]

This is from last november. The situation will change, especially with del duca gone.

I wouldn't be so sure...CP and York Region still have to come onside for the full Missing Link. CP can be forced under legislation, albeit that would take backbone on the part of the feds, good luck on that, but under the Relocation and Crossing Act, all municipalities affected have to be agreeable. York won't be. It's far more than just Il Duce.

Joint 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-1.html#h-3

I suspect there are ways of getting around York Region's intransigence, but that misses the point. *Any* kind of technicality will be enough to throw a rail spanner into an application before the CTA and approval.

This is not the case for the simple Brampton Bypass. "All municipalities within that area (affected)" will be more than supportive of this.

 

[TOareaFan]

I would bet Mississauga would find a reason to oppose the solution that only moves CN and frees up space on only the Kitchener corridor.

They should (would) hold out and pressure the feds and province to get CP and York region onside.......CN only gives a very small part of Mississauga additional service....but moving CP and CN seems key to unlocking the potential of the Milton GO corridor!