[TOareaFan]

^is this in reference to the interview that the Minister of Transportation gave to CBC KW?

The most stunning thing to me is that he thinks he can (and will) ram a line of trains travelling at 240km/hour through, but not stopping in, the downtown of a >600k city while relying on an EA for a service that has virtually nothing in common with that.

 

[crs1026]

^is this in reference to the interview that the Minister of Transportation gave to CBC KW?

The most stunning thing to me is that he thinks he can (and will) ram a line of trains travelling at 240km/hour through, but not stopping in, the downtown of a >600k city while relying on an EA for a service that has virtually nothing in common with that.

If it's any comfort (probably more like salt in the wound actually) he expressed a concern that these trains not go too fast through these intermediate points, which is why the limit is 213 km/h not 240. But since he was playing to a Waterloo audience, his not mentioning it might not mean anything. Brampton has to get better GO service if the bypass is secured.

It is interesting how much they are playing to KW in this. It's clever in some respects. "The London leg will take much, much longer because those nasty feds have a whole different set of rules that are much more onerous." I wonder if he's hoping that there are screams from London about being left out, and demanding the process be expedited. And any opposition from in between (eg Oxford County) is played off against London not Queens Park. There may be a technical basis to his claim that the London leg has to be done in a fuller process. Certainly, if he skips a step, there will be court challenges from Oxford County. But he sure sounded like a Kitchener-Toronto EA would be a breeze.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

I was impressed with how well informed the interviewer sounded. Asked some key questions, drove to the heart of the matter. Extracted from DD the claim that yes, this is all doable. Here, need any more rope, Minister?

Besides all your other objective points, totally agree on this.

"Craig" was insistent and persistent. Refused to be cut off. And he did know his stuff, and also seized on the "K/W to Toronto" segment. I've got to see if there's a transcript for that. Better than to repeatedly listen to it. And this "Metrolinx Study"....yessssss...for what it's worth, I'll try digging on that too.

Il Duce's gist: "A surprising announcement imminent in the new year on the by-pass". That remains, more than ever, the crux of HSR, HFR, RER, and Roy Rogers Express...

 

[steveintoronto]

It is interesting how much they are playing to KW in this. It's clever in some respects. "The London leg will take much, much longer because those nasty feds have a whole different set of rules that are much more onerous."

Indeed...and Craig was having none of it.

I also found the claim of his (gist) "Meeting with Garneau" a bit too clever for his own good. By doing so, as you infer, he deferred the responsibility for progress to the Feds. That may backfire....but I'm delighted he did drop the mention.

This is looking more and more like 'HFR+ Extended'. And THAT makes sense. It's so past time to drop the "High Speed" mantra, albeit the term is nebulous. K/W especially will find sweetness in "RER+".

"TPAP" here we come...

Addendum: Quick Google in case there's something newer up. Just this from June, which in retrospect, does buttress Il Duce's comments *to an extent*:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20170628/20170628_BoardMtg_RER_Report_EN.pdf

HSR
providing limited stop “intercity”
service (to Guelph and Pearson/Malton)
•
HSR
will likely operate at lower speed
limits on some
RER
corridor segments
between Kitchener and Toronto

Essentially "HFR". Note how (for whatever reason) the VIA yellow marking disappears on the K/W to Toronto stretch on the map.

 

[TOareaFan]

If it's any comfort (probably more like salt in the wound actually) he expressed a concern that these trains not go too fast through these intermediate points, which is why the limit is 213 km/h not 240. But since he was playing to a Waterloo audience, his not mentioning it might not mean anything. Brampton has to get better GO service if the bypass is secured.

your right, small comfort....the point is that these very fast trains are going to be zooming through our city and not stopping......and the minister responsible for all of the province is trying to ram it through just as fast without really stopping.

GO ReR and this HSR are completely different services with different environmental and community impacts....to try and use the EA process of one for both of them is a sham.

It is interesting how much they are playing to KW in this.

Sure is....particularly when you consider that KW (according to the census) is the most car dependent community in the region for commuting and 72% of KW's commutes are within the KW region anyway.

https://torontoist.com/2017/12/biggest-transit-need-southern-ontario-local-not-regional/

 

[crs1026]

Indeed...and Craig was having none of it.

I also found the claim of his (gist) "Meeting with Garneau" a bit too clever for his own good. By doing so, as you infer, he deferred the responsibility for progress to the Feds. That may backfire....but I'm delighted he did drop the mention.

DD acknowledged (the interviewer raised the issue, and DD actually seemed aware of it) that Ottawa wants to rewrite the standards and regulations for High(er) speed rail passenger.

I am just bitter and cynical enough to wonder if this is the latest fool's errand that the bureaucracy in Ottawa has dug up to stalemate both Ontario and VIA on its plans. Seems odd that it would become an issue now. Here, VIA, thanks for the studies we asked for about HFR. But we have to rewrite our regulations, and then you will have to rewrite your Business Case to address them. In the meanwhile, please cut down the tallest tree in the forest - with a herring.

Perhaps Ontario has realised that Ottawa is not HxR's friend, and the bloom is off the rose in Federal-Ontario relationships on this topic.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

your right, small comfort....the point is that these very fast trains are going to be zooming through our city and not stopping......and the minister responsible for all of the province is trying to ram it through just as fast without really stopping.

GO ReR and this HSR are completely different services with different environmental and community impacts....to try and use the EA process of one for both of them is a sham.

Maybe others are more familiar but what would be the major differences between an EA or a TPAP (as the Minister suggested) between Bramalea-Georgetown or Bramalea-Kitchener? The Minister mentioned in the interview that a TPAP would be faster in terms of its timeline for completion. Would there by anything on the technical side that an EA would provide that a TPAP wouldn't?

Also, here's the slide from this presentation which noted an "additional" track needed through Brampton (they are already doing the 4th track south of the UP Spur to where it currently doesn't exist to Union) and a second track needed through Georgetown and Kitchener. I guess this implies from a speed perspective, there would be a mixture of HSR and GORER trains using the same corridor. I assume that the reference to Transport Canada might be the acknowledgement of how this would work?

 

[steveintoronto]

DD acknowledged (the interviewer raised the issue, and DD actually seemed aware of it) that Ottawa wants to rewrite the standards and regulations for High(er) speed rail passenger.

I am just bitter and cynical enough to wonder if this is the latest fool's errand that the bureaucracy in Ottawa has dug up to stalemate both Ontario and VIA on its plans. Seems odd that it would become an issue now. Here, VIA, thanks for the studies we asked for about HFR. But we have to rewrite our regulations, and then you will have to rewrite your Business Case to address them. In the meanwhile, please cut down the tallest tree in the forest - with a herring.

Perhaps Ontario has realised that Ottawa is not HxR's friend, and the bloom is off the rose in Federal-Ontario relationships on this topic.

- Paul

Had to quote your whole post because every sentence has a crucial point. I was thinking exactly the same, some of us have for some time, but to actually hear him state some of this is cathartic. It's really hard to nail down the implications though, as he has hedged still on aspects.

To venture a guess at this time: HSR *as touted* is dead, at least as a promoted ideology. What's curious is how he *carefully avoided* mentioning anything past London.

I'm going to invoke the participation of @Urban Sky to see if there's anything he can add on this. In all fairness to Urban...if there is some choice info, he's going to be expected not to divulge it. Something is coming to a head methinks...I do know that VIA planning and Metrolinx counterparts have shared sessions on PTC and CBTC. That's all I dare say as details become sketchy beyond that.

 

[ssiguy2]

Londoners will howl if they are have too long for HSR and especially if the first section ends in KWC. Windsor, although not part of the original plan, will also cry foul. If they try to end it at KWC and build it in 2 parts it will be seen by the SW as nothing more than a Toronto commuter line and once again Wynne will be seen as nothing more than the Premier of Toronto. They will rightfully say that KWC gets expanded GO service paid for 100% and of all places that don't need extra rail it's KWC.

The Tories don't have one seat in Windsor or London and to stop, even temporarily at KWC, guarantees them they won't get any of those seats. London for sure is banking on this line and want service to London to be the top priority not KWC.

 

[kEiThZ]

@ssiguy2

I have family in London. For them, this is a curiosity. They've heard it all before. And don't care.

Sadly, that seems to be the prevailing view.

London being left out will only be an issue if there are actual shovels in the ground. And we all know that is not happening for at least a decade.

 

[crs1026]

Maybe others are more familiar but what would be the major differences between an EA or a TPAP (as the Minister suggested) between Bramalea-Georgetown or Bramalea-Kitchener? The Minister mentioned in the interview that a TPAP would be faster in terms of its timeline for completion. Would there by anything on the technical side that an EA would provide that a TPAP wouldn't?

Can't say I am knowledgeable, but this Provincial document describes the TPAP process rather well. Section 4.6 makes mention of potential federal requirements. Section 25 of this Federal document (referenced in 4.6 above) indicates a Federal EA is required if a new rail line of over 32 km of new right of way is being built.

The primary differentiating feature of the TPAP is that it is time-bound. If you look at the regulatory processes for, say, the proposed Nuclear Waste repository near Kincardine, the federal process can clearly drag on for years when the topic is controversial and has both proponents and opponents. There may be differences between the processes in the scope of what is studied, but that is much less of a concern than the pure time duration.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

^ Thanks Paul. Very helpful. I might do some digging. I think a fundamental question would be what if any consultant report or drawing would be done for an EA that's not done for a TPAP. Can a TPAP for HSR and GORER get the same level of detail compared to an EA for HSR and GORER?

 

[muller877]

your right, small comfort....the point is that these very fast trains are going to be zooming through our city and not stopping......and the minister responsible for all of the province is trying to ram it through just as fast without really stopping.

GO ReR and this HSR are completely different services with different environmental and community impacts....to try and use the EA process of one for both of them is a sham.

When building a new route there are impacts to wildlife and the ecosystem. Plus crossing rivers, streams and wetlands. Hence an ENVIRONMENTAL assessment is required. To mitigate any environmental issues (e.g. ensuring it does not disturb a provincially significant wetland)

When adding a 4th track to an already used corridor in the middle of a city does not impact wildlife that much. It does impact the community. As such a different process should be used. The question is how it impacts the community and whether the greater good of the province outweighs any negative impacts to the community.

So going through Brampton makes 100% sense to only look at the second test. When there is a new ROW being built you need to do both.

The NIMBY vs provincial transit corridor issues you are raising do not take as long as a full EA. It really is just one person (the premier) getting all the facts and making an educated decision.

 

[TOareaFan]

Call me NIMBY if it makes you feel better about your superior knowledge in life.....,,but since I, generally support building more transit, I am not sure the term means what you think it does....but I get that name calling makes some people feel better.

I do believe there is more to EAs than just the natural environment......and I believe things like impacts on a cpmmunity’s living environment is an issue and there is precedent for the impact that a service that cuts through a city/area without serving it being a significant enough negative to force the province to change their plans/design.

NYMBY out!

 

[steveintoronto]

From the Federal end:

Canadian Transportation Agency
Railway Line Construction: A Resource Tool

Introduction
This resource tool is designed to assist railway companies under the Canadian Transportation Agency's jurisdiction that want to construct a railway line and to assist parties who may be affected by any such construction.

Construction of a railway line
Under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act, the following provisions apply to the construction of railway lines, including main lines, branch lines, yard tracks, sidings, spurs or other track auxiliary to a railway line.

1. A railway company shall not construct a railway line without the Agency's approval.
2. If the railway company applies to construct a line, the Agency may approve the application if it considers the location of the railway line reasonable. The Agency must consider requirements for railway operations and services, and the interests of the localities that the line will affect.
3. No approval is needed to construct a railway line within the right-of-way of an existing line, or within 100 metres of the centre line of an existing railway line for a distance of no more than three kilometres.

Additionally, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), the Agency must ensure that an environmental assessment of any proposed construction project is undertaken. The Agency may only allow proceed to consider the project if it is satisfied that there will be no significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account any mitigative measures proposed by the project proponent.

Notice
When a railway company wants to construct a railway line covered by the Act, it must properly notify all parties who may be affected by or have an interest in the proposed line, so that they can have the opportunity to make a submission to the Agency regarding the proposed line. Such notification may include direct notice to affected landowners, communities and others, as well as public notices in local newspapers. Applicants should contact Agency staff to determine the specific notice requirements for the proposed line.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/railway-line-construction-a-resource-tool

Note:

No approval is needed to construct a railway line within the right-of-way of an existing line

That is the clause that HFR is relying on for the proposed line Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal. It will also pertain to HxR in the existing RoW to Kitchener, albeit interpretation may be complicated by the need for a track and bed of a quality higher than made available under present regs. Transport Canada have a lot of catching up to do on a number of regulatory issues. Garrneau has most assuredly been made aware of that...

See also:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ctareview2014/pdf/AMT_Metrolinx_Translink.pdf

[...]

[...]
https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/1799/3-8a-6-ea-transit-projects-en-pdf.pdf

Pg 10 from the above pdf: