NW87
Active Member
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter SaugeenJunction
- Start date
just east of the creek
Active Member
I am a fan of railways generally, I think they have a role to play, and I believe that role could be larger with a little more forward thinking on behalf of rail operators generally.
BUT I am sad to see this photo, even though it’s an event that has been years in the making. The reason, once again ,is valuable acres of the best classes of farmland are becoming large surface areas of asphalt. And one day that is going to bite us back.
When I get my daily update on farming outlooks and farming futures, the news is full of the very negative affects of global warming on farming - and here in North America, and here in this country (Alberta for instance) We are so conditioned to stopping by the local grocery outlet and picking up xyz, and it’s only been recently, lately, that on occasion supplies of xyz do not exist or are priced at a level that shocks the purchaser.
i am sorry, but I think we are just starting to see the tip of these periodic shortages or price shocks, and I am not sure it is going to get better. Doug Fords violation of the green belt is one (small?) part of this, but we will rue the day, one day. Same with the 413 and any talk of the Mid-Penn Highway. One day Doug Ford will realize that farmers are as least as important as his developer buddies. Regardless of where we farm, Halton, York, Durham, once you pave the land, you cannot grow food on those lands (shout out to those specializing in vertical farming and other groundbreaking technologies). But housing you can redevelop. Industrial spaces you can redevelop, and both of this can be targeted to classes of land that are less favourable to growing food.
Farm land is not vacant land. Far too much land use planning assumes that fact.
drum118
Superstar
RR and Unions shot themselves back in the 50s-70s by not adjusting to the changing economics how things need to move to the point trucking took away a large section of the good been move rail at the time.
The need for single homes was taking off along with the need to have a car that good farmland has been lost and continue to be lost not only to the car, but the global warming and families giving up on farming.
As a RR fan, its sad to see where RR yards used to be or a shell of then today along with the abandon of lines due to mergers of RR. A lot of those yards don't have the cargo they used to have as they have either cease to exist today or moved away from rail corridor where they had siding to them to cheap land that has more room for them.
RR are now looking at areas where things can be ship faster and transfer to trucking as unit train with the Milton yard been an example how other systems are doing it today. CN Bramalea yard is max out and no room to expand, so this is a good site for them under their thinking as well the ability to expand down road road.
The day is coming where a lot of farmland will be in a glass bubble to deal with global warming and grow things all year around.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Part of the problem is freight operations have largely been driven out of urban areas. Most commercial customers no longer have industrial rail connections so the need for intermodal-type and/or large logistical warehousing and handling facilities grows. I also hate to see productive land paved over but the land and redevelopment cost of a brownfield site, or adequate size and that is adjacent to main lines is likely prohibitive.
crs1026
Superstar
^The horse before the cart in this one is whether we are planning logistics (and industry/employment lands generally) as a single use of land or letting things work themselves out at a more granular level.
The CN terminal is necessary, and it needs to be close to the major logistics terminals which have sprung up like weeds across Halton and Peel. Taken as a single system, the surface area of those terminals and the farmland lost to warehouse construction far exceeds the acreage of the CN site.
The challenge for CN was, how to assemble a single tract of land large enough for a rail yard. That's a much bigger challenge than just finding the land for a single warehouse or even a collection of such facilities.
My simple mind thinks that there were better sites for the CN terminal in the same general area.... but unless the municipal and regional and provincial governments were willing to identify those sites, and help CN acquire that land at comparable or better cost, and deal with the inevitable nimby opposition to that, they made their own bed on this one.
That part of Halton Region is very deeply rooted in my own life - so much of my recreation and enjoyment of nature has happened in that space. Seeing it transition from beautiful countryside and productive farmland to urban sprawl really bites. But that change was inevitable, I suppose. The sad part is that Milton will end up as a less attractive and liveable community because the rail yard is where it is.
All water over the bridge, I'm afraid.
- Paul
The CN terminal is necessary, and it needs to be close to the major logistics terminals which have sprung up like weeds across Halton and Peel. Taken as a single system, the surface area of those terminals and the farmland lost to warehouse construction far exceeds the acreage of the CN site.
The challenge for CN was, how to assemble a single tract of land large enough for a rail yard. That's a much bigger challenge than just finding the land for a single warehouse or even a collection of such facilities.
My simple mind thinks that there were better sites for the CN terminal in the same general area.... but unless the municipal and regional and provincial governments were willing to identify those sites, and help CN acquire that land at comparable or better cost, and deal with the inevitable nimby opposition to that, they made their own bed on this one.
That part of Halton Region is very deeply rooted in my own life - so much of my recreation and enjoyment of nature has happened in that space. Seeing it transition from beautiful countryside and productive farmland to urban sprawl really bites. But that change was inevitable, I suppose. The sad part is that Milton will end up as a less attractive and liveable community because the rail yard is where it is.
All water over the bridge, I'm afraid.
- Paul
Transportfan
Senior Member
Pretty much going to be the case anywhere a rail yard is built.
Northern Light
Superstar
Is that a Paul'ism?
LOL
Water over the bridge is a wash-out/bridge collapse.
I like it.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Allandale25
Senior Member
News:
News release
On March 1, 2024, the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Halton Municipalities with respect to CN’s proposed truck-rail facility in the Town of Milton. The Court found that the decisions of the Federal Minister and Cabinet failed to fulfill their duty to protect human health.
The project cannot now proceed without going back to the Federal government for reconsideration, including a full evaluation of the effects of the project.
“This has been a long battle to protect the health of our residents,” said Milton Mayor Gord Krantz. “We are delighted that our concerns have been heard.”
“The Court noted Federal Cabinet’s decision was flawed and unreasonable,” said Halton Regional Chair Gary Carr. “Our concerns about the health and safety of our residents have been heard loud and clear and we are very pleased with the Court’s decision.”
In 2020, the Environmental Review Panel found that CN’s proposed truck-rail hub in Milton would have significant adverse effects on the health of Halton residents. This is the only project ever subject to a federal environmental panel review found likely to cause significant adverse effects on human health.
There are also additional concerns about safety due to the potential for increased traffic. The project site is located within one kilometer of more than 34,000 residents, one hospital, 12 schools, and two long-term care homes.
Learn more about Milton's position on the project.
CN Logistics Hub
Learn about the CN Milton Logistics Hub proposal, our community’s concerns, and how you can get involved.www.milton.ca
– 30 –
For media inquiries, please contact:
Rob Faulkner
Senior Advisor, Public Relations
Email Communications Staff
Read this article on our website.
dowlingm
Senior Member
crs1026
Superstar
Cutting through all the legal arguments, the concern that may carry the most weight with local residents and municipal politicians is truck traffic.... the Province is building good access to the 401 but there is a legitimate concern that individual truckers will take a short cut through areas that ought to be off-limits to truck traffic.
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.
It certainly seems to me that this is solvable by putting some of CN's skin in the game. Suppose, for instance, that the municipality has the legal right to seize any offending truck (and its load) for 14 days. The shipper ain't going to like the service when the goods are sitting in an impound yard..
The other notable part of this argument is.... having obtained a favourable court ruling, the Province or Municipality have bargaining leverage. Maybe if Ottawa or the Province played their cards well, they could demand reciprocity....say, for things that CN is holding up with respect to GO expansion or VIA service. We complain so much about how Ottawa has no leverage on passenger rail.... well, maybe now they have a little. Let's not be "too nice" and not be willing to use it.
- Paul
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.
It certainly seems to me that this is solvable by putting some of CN's skin in the game. Suppose, for instance, that the municipality has the legal right to seize any offending truck (and its load) for 14 days. The shipper ain't going to like the service when the goods are sitting in an impound yard..
The other notable part of this argument is.... having obtained a favourable court ruling, the Province or Municipality have bargaining leverage. Maybe if Ottawa or the Province played their cards well, they could demand reciprocity....say, for things that CN is holding up with respect to GO expansion or VIA service. We complain so much about how Ottawa has no leverage on passenger rail.... well, maybe now they have a little. Let's not be "too nice" and not be willing to use it.
- Paul
dowlingm
Senior Member
Not sure I see the leverage here - or at least not for everyone. CN will likely continue to resist giving municipalities any say in their operations, wanting to deal direct with the feds and not set any precedents. I doubt Ontario wants any part of this (and they were not a party to the judicial review).
The question is how does the federal Minister and Cabinet get out from under this mess. It may be the only way in the short/medium term is for the Minister to basically say "there is no way to mitigate local harms" and the fed cabinet explicitly says "yep that's a shame but that's how it is" (para 165-166 above) and CN gets what they want. But it surely obliterates van Koeverden's chances of re-election in Milton (which was already on shaky ground by all accounts. The municipal parties may still take another kick at review as a delaying tactic to increase the pressure on CN. Even if CN were to (for example) offer to electrify sections of its lines for its own and/or VIA/GO purposes, that would be a net reduction where those lines run but doesn't do much to mitigate the local effects of the trucks coming in and out of the site.
My concern is how this might impede other rail projects which must use diesel, are large enough to trigger this level of review, and are similarly unwelcome by the local municipality.
Allandale25
Senior Member
CN's response:
www.cn.ca
The Milton Logistics Hub is Critical to North American Supply Chains | cn.ca
The Milton Logistics Hub is Critical to North American Supply Chains
www.cn.ca
DSC
Superstar
crs1026
Superstar
Ontario has jurisdiction over highway transport, so has legislative and regulatory authority over trucking. And has chipped in a lot of money for the road connections. How trucking operates at this location is very much in their domain. They can in turn delegate or make commitments to the municipality. The yard may be a federal matter, but the drayage is Ontario's turf. So they have leverage.
The yard is not going to be abandoned because of this ruling. I would see this project being approved with certain additional measures. It is comparable to the Georgetown South project, which was approved conditional on GO acquiring Tier IV locomotives; or the Davenport Diamond, which was approved conditional on a maximum number of diesel trains per day until the line is electrified.
Ottawa has a lot of negotiating leverage to be accommodating, or not, on such requirements for Milton. That's where I see the leverage.
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.
They probably don't need all of this to be done on day one, since the environmental impact may be cumulative over the long term, and some of these technologies are not mature. But even offering to try some of these would be a big olive branch - and even a 10% reduction in emissions over diesel might change the numbers.
Perhaps I'm off base on the specifics of the leverage - my point is, CN can walk away with approval, or they can work for it. With the railways having the upper hand in so many other areas, it's incumbent on government to plumb the opportunities where they arise. This may be one.
- Paul