[Northern Light]

So............the above got me to thinking about the video @Allandale25 posted up page, last October, showing construction already underway, in the form of relocation of CN's mainline.

So, I went to look and see if the poster had any updates............indeed they do, from February 2024:

The mainline has been fully relocated out of the way of the yard.

It appears this is significantly ahead of schedule.............

 

[lenaitch]

CN, of course, will claim ignorance of any such violations and maintain that it is not their role to enforce what goes on off their property by contract drivers who are not their employees. That may be true in a strict legal sense but it's an example where the railways manage to avoid all the risks and impacts while professing to be a "seamless" integrated transportation network. And expecting to have cheap and unfettered use of roads built by the taxpayer.

Or ,alternatively (he said not knowing the exact layout and positioning of the proposed site) the road connection to the 401 and/or other alternative arterial access routes could have been ordered to be private haul routes owned by CN.

 

[dowlingm]

I am surprised that CN is not falling all over itself with things aimed at making this project greener. They could propose that a certain percentage of the drayage will be EV trucks. They could do likewise with machinery within the site. They could propose that switching will be done with prototype hydrogen or battery locomotives. They could use solar or wind power for yard requirements.

The air quality conditions start at page 15.

https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p80100/144613E.pdf

Lots of “if technically or economically feasible”. References to trucks relate to CN-owned vehicles. The Expert Panel report (a dense but interesting read which discloses submissions by CN, municipalities, residents and provincial/federal agencies) notes CN as saying they can’t oblige customers to use CN’s trucks. https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p80100/133733E.pdf

I am wondering how CN can materially offset local benzene and PMx emissions given their model depends on diesel for locomotives, stackers and other purposes, and the likelihood of truck queuing. Perhaps they could make an offer to Milton to co-fund conversion of high-use diesel municipal vehicles to cleaner fuels/hybrid. It would have to be a lot of vehicles though. Co funding grade separation of one or more nearby crossings would address idling emissions from waiting cars

 

[Northern Light]

Looking at Halton's official complain about this project page, here:

Halton - CN Milton Logistics Hub Project

www.halton.ca

I see this:

Certainly I think, no residential should be allowed inside the 300M buffer. If that means CN has to buy out an existing developer's rights, that seems reasonable to me.

Removing everything that already exists within the 1km buffer zone does not seem like it would be economically feasible.

As compensation goes, how about acquiring a continuous conservation corridor linking Bronte Provincial Park (just to the south-east of the lower right in the image above) to Mt. Nemo Conservation Area. Reforesting, I dunno, 2,000 acres ought to offset something......

 

[Transportfan]

Certainly I think, no residential should be allowed inside the 300M buffer. If that means CN has to buy out an existing developer's rights, that seems reasonable to me.

Rezone to industrial.

 

[just east of the creek]

Looking at Halton's official complain about this project page, here:

Halton - CN Milton Logistics Hub Project

www.halton.ca

I see this:

View attachment 545802

Certainly I think, no residential should be allowed inside the 300M buffer. If that means CN has to buy out an existing developer's rights, that seems reasonable to me.

Removing everything that already exists within the 1km buffer zone does not seem like it would be economically feasible.

As compensation goes, how about acquiring a continuous conservation corridor linking Bronte Provincial Park (just to the south-east of the lower right in the image above) to Mt. Nemo Conservation Area. Reforesting, I dunno, 2,000 acres ought to offset something......

Correct me if I am wrong, but if memory serves me right, CN assembled these lands multiple years ago, tens of years ago, and made no bones about their intention to develop. It was fairly common local knowledge, and although not well liked, was not a secret. Given that, I would think the ball is on the other jurisdictions foot- the town and region, who have played a silly game of pretending CN is not there. Rezonimg back to agriculture or employment lands would make some sense. Funnily enough I am in Kansas right now looking at an intermodal sight right now, along with a few more of those million sq ft warehouses…..

 

[Northern Light]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if memory serves me right, CN assembled these lands multiple years ago, tens of years ago, and made no bones about their intention to develop. It was fairly common local knowledge, and although not well liked, was not a secret. Given that, I would think the ball is on the other jurisdictions foot- the town and region, who have played a silly game of pretending CN is not there. Rezonimg back to agriculture or employment lands would make some sense. Funnily enough I am in Kansas right now looking at an intermodal sight right now, along with a few more of those million sq ft warehouses…..

That's an interesting question. If CN never filed a formal application to rezone or alter the Official Plan, on what basis would a municipal gov't deny another land owner permission to develop?

If the land were zoned for heavy industry, then there should be a plan to buffer that from any permitted residential.

I don't know the zoning history of the land, so can't speak to that. But its an intriguing question.

I certainly agree if the land were zoned for its proposed use, that the there would be an obligation on the municipal gov't to plan accordingly.

But if that land were otherwise designated/zoned.............Hmmm

 

[just east of the creek]

That's an interesting question. If CN never filed a formal application to rezone or alter the Official Plan, on what basis would a municipal gov't deny another land owner permission to develop?

If the land were zoned for heavy industry, then there should be a plan to buffer that from any permitted residential.

I don't know the zoning history of the land, so can't speak to that. But its an intriguing question.

I certainly agree if the land were zoned for its proposed use, that the there would be an obligation on the municipal gov't to plan accordingly.

But if that land were otherwise designated/zoned.............Hmmm

I do not remember all the details right now and am a long way from home, so I am leaving the question open. Not that CN has ever been the most forthcoming neighbour partner ( there closing of the side road for two years, basically without warning being the latest example) but the region and Milton are not exactly shining examples of pragmatic governance with CN and the planning process’

 

[crs1026]

There is definitely a collision between urban planning (which is a provincial/municipal matter) and railway planning (which is federal and has legal overrides).

I don't know the blow by blow history, but clearly Milton had developers assembling farmland with the intent of building suburbs at the same time as CN was assembling land to build its yard. A recipe for problems.

- Paul

 

[tsm1072]

Not sure if it should go in this thread of general railways discussions, but I picked this one as it is likely related to the logistics hub.

Does anyone know if CN is planning a grade separation between the Halton Sub and Mainway in Burlington? Everytime I have been across that level crossing in the past 6-12 months, there has been one or more CN work trucks and sometimes multiple workers at the crossing. I'm not sure if this is for signal work related to the Milton Hub, verifying crossing functionality in rush hour, or taking data for a grade separation.

A quick search found some references to it in a letter to council in 2019 from BILD:
https://burlingtonpublishing.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=55146

There is also this 2012 article mentioning an EA:
https://www.insidehalton.com/news/m...cle_9111d3a8-4fe6-5569-a153-e1d1ad1e4c83.html

And unrelated to the grade separation, but this great article breaking down the functionality of the current crossing:
https://local-news.ca/2022/04/20/how-things-work-the-mainway-railroad-crossing/

I'd think we the increased rail traffic in this area once the Logistics hub opens, this will be a priority again. Anyone know anything more about it or why there is always workers at this crossing?

 

[Northern Light]

Does anyone know if CN is planning a grade separation between the Halton Sub and Mainway in Burlington?

Found it in Burlington's Capital budget for you:

2033 is the scheduled year, currently.

Seems unlikely any work going on now is for that.

****

Edit to add, in case there are any other Burlington projects about which are you curious, here's the link, just search for key words to find what interests you:

https://www.burlington.ca/en/council-and-city-administration/resources/Budget-and-Finances/Proposed-Budget-Book/2024/2024_Financial_Needs_and_Multi-Year_Forecast.pdf

 

[Bojaxs]

Would Milton have to redesign all their roundabouts along Tremaine Rd. to accommodate all the trucks driving between the 401 and the Milton yard?

I know here in North America some roundabouts have been constructed with "truck aprons" to accommodate semi trucks.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Would Milton have to redesign all their roundabouts along Tremaine Rd. to accommodate all the trucks driving between the 401 and the Milton yard?

I know here in North America some roundabouts have been constructed with "truck aprons" to accommodate semi trucks.

Good question. All of the roundabouts on Tremaine from 401 to Britannia were designed with aprons, probably with the foresight of Tremaine acting as a freight route.