407 Rail Freight Bypass/The Missing Link

[Northern Light]

CN won't allow CP on those tracks. Aside from blocking the crews trying to access their train. Allowing CP trains through here would impede CN moving trains into and out of the Malport yard.

With great respect; you're speaking about a proposal that is not currently substantive, that if it happens will be in the future and the subject of compensation/benefits between government and/or the 2 Class 1s; and you are speaking on their behalf.

You can't.

Your way out in front without any foundation.

 

[Bojaxs]

With great respect; you're speaking about a proposal that is not currently substantive, that if it happens will be in the future and the subject of compensation/benefits between government and/or the 2 Class 1s; and you are speaking on their behalf.

You can't.

Your way out in front without any foundation.

lol!

Substantive? Didn't Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals come to an agreement with CN at one point to move forward with the missing link? I support the "missing link" for CN and taking trains out of downtown Brampton and creating a rapid transit line to Kitchener. I'm just letting people know that as a CN employee if they're counting on CN sharing their tracks with CP, it's not happening. Alternatives for the Milton line will have to be thought up. Extra tracks?

Malport has been converted into an intermodal yard, which effectively makes it an extension of the Brampton yard. This in turns makes the York sub for CN one of THE MOST vital portions of it's tracks in the GTA. I guarantee you allowing CP trains to pass through here would be non-negotiable. You're asking CN to slow down their intermodal operations in order to allow CP trains to pass by. Intermodal is CN's biggest money maker. Probably the same for every other class 1, freight, rail company.

 

[Northern Light]

lol!

Substantive? Didn't Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals come to an agreement with CN at one point to move forward with the missing link? I support the "missing link" for CN and taking trains out of downtown Brampton and creating a rapid transit line to Kitchener. I'm just letting people know that as a CN employee if they're counting on CN sharing their tracks with CP, it's not happening. Alternatives for the Milton line will have to be thought up. Extra tracks?

Malport has been converted into an intermodal yard, which effectively makes it an extension of the Brampton yard. This in turns makes the York sub for CN one of THE MOST vital portions of it's tracks in the GTA. I guarantee you allowing CP trains to pass through here would be non-negotiable. You're asking CN to slow down their intermodal operations in order to allow CP trains to pass by. Intermodal is CN's biggest money maker. Probably the same for every other class 1, freight, rail company.

Sigh.

I'm not asking anything of anyone.

I'm saying this discussion is done, because you don't know how to differentiate between speculation and fact.

 

[crs1026]

^Just for the record, Metrolinx abandoned the Missing Link project because it became apparent that CN would be much more amenable to adding trackage to their existing Halton Sub line and allowing joint operation than moving over to a new line.

It's hard to say just who blinked. Maybe CN saw the CP shift as gaining momentum sucl that they couldn't prevent it, and chose to swallow their previous opposition to the shared approach.... or maybe ML saw CN's opposition to the shared CN/CP bypass (and maybe CP's also) as an immovable object - anyways, they chose to meet in the middle.

We are, however, waiting for evidence that CN and ML have actually finalised the deal for upgrading the Halton Line. We hear bits and pieces, but it's not being celebrated or publicised broadly.

- Paul

 

[KhalilHeron]

I think the Missing Link's best shot at getting built is if the 407 line gets built as heavy rail instead of BRT. For that section of track, there could be parallel freight tracks to get freight trains off the midtown and Milton corridor. I don't see it getting built as freight only because the freight railways don't have the incentives to drop that kind of money, and I don't see the province paying for that much rail infrastructure if none of it is to be used in passenger service (even if it helps open up capacity for passenger rail elsewhere).

 

[Sunnyside]

I think the Missing Link's best shot at getting built is if the 407 line gets built as heavy rail instead of BRT. For that section of track, there could be parallel freight tracks to get freight trains off the midtown and Milton corridor. I don't see it getting built as freight only because the freight railways don't have the incentives to drop that kind of money, and I don't see the province paying for that much rail infrastructure if none of it is to be used in passenger service (even if it helps open up capacity for passenger rail elsewhere).

Generally I agree with this- the missing link is a rail line along the 407 for the RRs, while the new 407 RT is rail along the 407, but for transit. Of course they aren’t apples to apples in terms of what we get out of it, but the bang for buck is quite high on the latter proposal. The missing link would still require additional investment into the Milton Line to make it usable for RT, especially if the eastern end of CPs line gets used by GO too (as it should).

In a truly ideal world you would ultimately build both as one; a rail line in the 407 ROW from end to end for both freight and transit. The rail section west of the 427 might be less useful to GO, but it would be the lynchpin for the freights. Meanwhile the opposite is true for the central section.

In any case, I think a money-wise PC Government would do well to coordinate the purported 407 RT with something like the Missing Link if it’s determined it’s still necessary. Given how the 407 RT seems to involve the MTO, a long term joint project between CN, CP, the MTO and Metrolinx to build a 4+ track joint corridor isn’t insane. It’s not like we have to tunnel our orbital rail line (see Melbourne). I do find it easy to believe that we can upgrade Milton without the Link, but I think we leave a lot more on the table without it given what else it will/might open up doors to. That is to say the marginal benefit of building the link is higher than not.

 

[Allandale25]

lol!

Substantive? Didn't Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals come to an agreement with CN at one point to move forward with the missing link? I support the "missing link" for CN and taking trains out of downtown Brampton and creating a rapid transit line to Kitchener. I'm just letting people know that as a CN employee if they're counting on CN sharing their tracks with CP, it's not happening. Alternatives for the Milton line will have to be thought up. Extra tracks?

Malport has been converted into an intermodal yard, which effectively makes it an extension of the Brampton yard. This in turns makes the York sub for CN one of THE MOST vital portions of it's tracks in the GTA. I guarantee you allowing CP trains to pass through here would be non-negotiable. You're asking CN to slow down their intermodal operations in order to allow CP trains to pass by. Intermodal is CN's biggest money maker. Probably the same for every other class 1, freight, rail company.

For context, the Wynne government also faced opposition from residents in York Region, particularly Thornhill, on allowing CP Rail to use the CN York Sub. It wasn't just CN that opposed this.

Further, the Wynne-CN announcement in 2016 and the subsequent study work (none of which became public) that the PC government didn't proceed with was for a freight bypass only for CN. No changes would have been required to the York Sub. In other words, at the time, the Wynne government wasn't waiting or hoping for CP to come on board/CN to agree.

Update: I should also add that obviously Mississauga and Milton wanted a bypass that included CP. Even some in Toronto wanted it because they thought it could avoid the need to build a Davenport Overpass.

 

[crs1026]

For context, the Wynne government also faced opposition from residents in York Region, particularly Thornhill, on allowing CP Rail to use the CN York Sub. It wasn't just CN that opposed this.

Further, the Wynne-CN announcement in 2016 and the subsequent study work (none of which became public) that the PC government didn't proceed with was for a freight bypass only for CN. No changes would have been required to the York Sub. In other words, at the time, the Wynne government wasn't waiting or hoping for CP to come on board/CN to agree.

Update: I should also add that obviously Mississauga and Milton wanted a bypass that included CP. Even some in Toronto wanted it because they thought it could avoid the need to build a Davenport Overpass.

I do recall that some of the early documents did include a connection to the CP at Milton, so the possibility was at least broached by those doing the studying.

I can appreciate the opposition from York Region. Getting rid of the CP line is a bit Toronto centric.... I have a lot of angst about the safety aspects of having a major freight corridor run through the center of the City.... but really the CN line has become just as much of a line through the center of a very large city. North Toronto may date from 1900 but Thornhill etc suburbs are now 50-70 years old. Having two lines that each carry half the traffic may be safer and more flexible than having one corridor carry all the traffic, with no sharing of risk between cities.

Having read a lot of the media coverage from the late 1950's when the CN line was first planned, there was little or no foresight about how that line would end up in the middle of a vast urban area. The opposition from residents came from communities where perhaps a dozen houses were being displaced. The only real argument was about the need for grade separations, and all it took to overcome local opposition was adding a few overpasses to larger roads. This was not that many years after the St Lawrence Seaway was built, which involved moving whole towns along the St Lawrence River. I wonder if that kind of project would ever get approved under current processes and sensitivities.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

^ Your memory is correct. Mississauga/Milton/Cambridge paid for a study by IBI Group and various high-level maps were released and made public.

The City of Mississauga even has this webpage still up with the materials. It was posted on UT at the time it was released in 2015 but posting it again for anyone new and since this thread came alive recently with discussion.

Missing link

www.mississauga.ca

 

[EnviroTO]

So only 14th Ave, Sewells Rd, Reesor Rd, and Woodview Drive remain on the York Sub. Will the first subdivision fully grade separated be the one that doesn't have passenger services?

 

[just east of the creek]

I do recall that some of the early documents did include a connection to the CP at Milton, so the possibility was at least broached by those doing the studying.

I can appreciate the opposition from York Region. Getting rid of the CP line is a bit Toronto centric.... I have a lot of angst about the safety aspects of having a major freight corridor run through the center of the City.... but really the CN line has become just as much of a line through the center of a very large city. North Toronto may date from 1900 but Thornhill etc suburbs are now 50-70 years old. Having two lines that each carry half the traffic may be safer and more flexible than having one corridor carry all the traffic, with no sharing of risk between cities.

Having read a lot of the media coverage from the late 1950's when the CN line was first planned, there was little or no foresight about how that line would end up in the middle of a vast urban area. The opposition from residents came from communities where perhaps a dozen houses were being displaced. The only real argument was about the need for grade separations, and all it took to overcome local opposition was adding a few overpasses to larger roads. This was not that many years after the St Lawrence Seaway was built, which involved moving whole towns along the St Lawrence River. I wonder if that kind of project would ever get approved under current processes and sensitivities.

- Paul

How difficult is it to quantify the safety aspects of both the CP and CN lines and major highways I.e. the 401? The concerns I can understand, and can be shared, The Mississauga ‘Disaster’ is a relevant close example. And this question is not to downplay any risk, but to better understand the options. All of these lines/highways were once on the fringe of settlement, now are in the midst. Moving the CP line and gaining a transit line through central Toronto seems like a plus. But a plus that will take a lot of political will power and investment to make happen. Building a new ROW through the 407 alignment cannot be cheap. Add in expansion of the existing CN line. And then all of your major freight movements through Toronto from Bramalea to ? are concentrated into one large ROW. The risks of centralization can be argued vs the possible longer term benefits to the railways and what those might be.

I think your point re the Seaway is spot on as well. I was refreshing my viewpoints last week as I drove home from Montreal, and I have a hard tIme imagining that project now, with todays attitudes and outlook re large scale Developement - the dam building that went on, the thousands of acres of land flooded, villages moved, wild life habitats etc.etc.

 

[Bojaxs]

The 407 bypass should be built just for CN with the intention of opening up the Kitchener line to AD2W GO trains.

Instead of having CP follow along the 407, we have it follow along the "hypothetical" 413 highway. Have CP's mainline go around Brampton and approach CP's Intermodal yard from the north. That would at least take freight traffic off the Milton line.

 

[drum118]

The 407 bypass should be built just for CN with the intention of opening up the Kitchener line to AD2W GO trains.

Instead of having CP follow along the 407, we have it follow along the "hypothetical" 413 highway. Have CP's mainline go around Brampton and approach CP's Intermodal yard from the north? That would at least take freight traffic off the Milton line.

And who $$ is going to pay the full cost to do it since neither CP or CN will be putting any money for it?? How long do you think the EA will be and how long will the construction of it will be??

How much time will be Added to CP travel time as well have CP telling their customer it will cost them more is shipping time as well cost using the new route???

How much more are you willing to pay more for goods shipped by rail that will be pass onto you due to extra shipping cost???

Put 4-5 tracks in those corridors today and the issue is solve

 

[Bojaxs]

And who $$ is going to pay the full cost to do it since neither CP or CN will be putting any money for it??

The Liberals. They've already done a miraculous job of drowning this country in debt as is. What's a couple extra billion at this point?

How much time will be Added to CP travel time as well have CP telling their customer it will cost them more is shipping time as well cost using the new route???

None. No time added. A dedicated freight line that goes north around Brampton and then towards the intermodal yard, versus the existing line that goes south into Etobicoke and then back up via the Davenport Diamond.

Put 4-5 tracks in those corridors today and the issue is solve

Always an option.

 

[lenaitch]

I do recall that some of the early documents did include a connection to the CP at Milton, so the possibility was at least broached by those doing the studying.

I can appreciate the opposition from York Region. Getting rid of the CP line is a bit Toronto centric.... I have a lot of angst about the safety aspects of having a major freight corridor run through the center of the City.... but really the CN line has become just as much of a line through the center of a very large city. North Toronto may date from 1900 but Thornhill etc suburbs are now 50-70 years old. Having two lines that each carry half the traffic may be safer and more flexible than having one corridor carry all the traffic, with no sharing of risk between cities.

Having read a lot of the media coverage from the late 1950's when the CN line was first planned, there was little or no foresight about how that line would end up in the middle of a vast urban area. The opposition from residents came from communities where perhaps a dozen houses were being displaced. The only real argument was about the need for grade separations, and all it took to overcome local opposition was adding a few overpasses to larger roads. This was not that many years after the St Lawrence Seaway was built, which involved moving whole towns along the St Lawrence River. I wonder if that kind of project would ever get approved under current processes and sensitivities.

- Paul

I sometimes wonder how much we can blame public officials from days past with not envisioning the future. I'm not sure 'urban planning' was much of a concept back then. There was very little opposition back then partially because the the York sub went through no community of any size. It was pretty much all farmland, places like Markham and Thornhill were skirted, small and probably had no local media. As well, society was much less 'activist' back then.

There is a strategic risk to running a significant element of our economy all in one corridor, but such is the world of involving private enterprise. If we were really that concerned about not having all of our container eggs in one basket, we would have insisted that one line remain in the Ottawa Valley, but that would have required taxpayers to subsidize it.

Interesting reflection to the Seaway. I think you are right to wonder whether such an undertaking would be possible today. I don't know that answer but do know that it would have taken a whole longer, simply on the grounds of EA reviews and public consultations.