DOCSLIB.ORG

Pedestrian Tunnel Installation Under Cn Mainlines in 44 Hours - Collaboration Between Cn and Metrolinx

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL INSTALLATION UNDER CN MAINLINES IN 44 HOURS - COLLABORATION BETWEEN CN AND METROLINX Authors: Dario Flammini Edward Wu, P.Eng., P.E. Birju Bhavsar, P.Eng. Manager of Structure (Retired) Project Manager Manager Metrolinx Canadian National Railway Metrolinx [email protected] Design & Construction – 20 Bay Street, 20th Floor Eastern Canada Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W3 1 Administration Road [email protected] Concord, Ontario L4K 1B9 [email protected] ABSTRACT Canadian National Railway (CN) and Metrolinx completed a pedestrian tunnel installation under two (2) mainline tracks with no injury and ahead of schedule in a 48-hour workblock in 2018. The pedestrian tunnel is a cast-in-place concrete structure and it was casted within an excavated launch pit area. A horizontal jacking methodology was implemented to advance the tunnel installation in order to mitigate impacts on train operations. The cast in place tunnel section was advanced into final position by utilizing two – 100 ton telescopic cylindrical jacks acting in tandem mounted on a specialized sled jacking assembly. The jacking assembly was positioned on 1” (25mm) steel jacking plates. The tunnel section was advanced a total distance of 57’ (17.5m) until it reached its final destination underneath the two (2) mainline tracks. This paper will discuss planning, design and construction of the tunnel installation under two (2) CN mainline tracks during a consecutive 44-hr weekend work block. PROJECT BACKGROUND Metrolinx is an extension of the Ontario government which involved itself with public transportation. Currently, Metrolinx is undertaking the Regional Express Rail (RER) project in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. As part of the RER project, infrastructure improvements at the Bramalea GO Station were proposed. One of the improvement is to extend the existing west pedestrian tunnel under CN mainline track 1 and 2 and tie into the future bus loop canopy at the north side of the station as shown in Figure 1 below. The tunnel extension is located at CN Halton Subdivision which accommodates both freight and passenger trains. Proposed West Tunnel Extension Figure 1 – Bramalea GO Station layout PLANNING AND DESIGN OF TUNNEL EXTENSION The project site situates on bedrock at a relatively high elevation in relation to the railway tracks. The proposed tunnel extension length is approximately 55’ under the tracks. Metrolinx evaluated a few tunnel installation options such as hoisting/craning and post-tensioning pre-cast concrete segments. After analysing several methodologies, it was concluded that the tunnel would be cast in place followed by an open-cut excavation and jacked into final position. The tunnel was cast north of Track 1 inside a launching pit approximately 8m (26’) wide by 30m (98’) long. The roof of the tunnel sits 800mm (2.6’) below existing base of rail elevation. Since there is no passenger train services on weekends, a continuous weekend work block was chosen. The 16.5m (54’) long cast-in-place concrete tunnel weights approximately 3,216 kN (722,986 lbs). See the tunnel cross section details below: Figure 2 – Jacking general assembly in launching pit Figure 3 – Jack set up prior to pushing Figure 4 – Jack general arrangement Figure 5 – Tunnel loading diagram and calculations CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND SEQUENCY In order to minimize the amount of work during the scheduled 48-hr work block, the following construction activities were performed prior to the work block: - Excavated a 30m L x 8m W x 6.5m D (100’ L x 26’ W x 20’ D) tunnel launch pit to allow for tunnel cast - Prepared subgrade for temporary 1” steel plate installation to be placed under the tunnel - Placed 6” of screening material over the subgrade and compacted to support the plate system - Installed eight 1” thick x 8’ wide x 20’ long plates welded together to form one system - Position 5 individual row of 1” thick x 16” wide Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMW) to be casted - UHMW sits in pre-determined pathway on the 1” steel plate - On the top of UHMW, ¼” steel plates are interconnected with the underside of the concrete tunnel base. These plates are cast into the concrete via studs. UHMW will serve as the riding surface between the tunnel and the steel plates and will ensure the push is straight as it is position in predetermined pathways for the entire length of the push - Used EFCO steel forms to form and pour tunnel structure - Cured concrete to 50 MPA and stripped forms - Installed temporary shoring wall on the island platform to facilitate tie in between the existing and new tunnel extension - Installed temporary overhead structure to support Bell 360Network fiber cable - Relocated fiber cable onto the temporary overhead structure - Waterproofed the tunnel structure - Installed ballast mat over tunnel structure - Installed hydraulic jacks required to push tunnel into place - Test push approximately 2’ of the tunnel structure - Imported and stockpiled all granular materials required for backfill - Mobilized all equipment required to site - Constructed two access ramps from the north parking lot to tracks to facilitate excavation and backfilling operations during work block Construction sequences are illustrated in the figures below. Figure 6 – Existing site condition Figure 7 – Install shoring wall, excavate pit and install jacking plates Figure 8 – Cast tunnel Figure 9 – Install hydraulic jack and prepare for tunnel installation Figure 10 – Remove track panels, excavate, jack and slide tunnel into final position Figure 11 – Backfill and reinstate track panels CONSTRUCTION DURING WORKBLOCK The 48-hr work block started at 2000 on September 21, 2018. Rails were saw cut on both tracks to remove two 90’ long track panels. CN utilized two hi-rail excavators to pick up the panels and carried them in the westward direction away from the construction zone. The track panel removal was completed in 30 minutes. Two excavators with multiple trucks and loaders carried out excavation of ballast, subballast and subgrade. Bedrock was encountered between 2m to 3m (6’ to 10’) below base of rail. Pneumatic hammers were used to fracture and breakup relatively soft shale. After excavation was completed, granular/screening base was placed, levelled and compacted. Jacking plates were hoisted into the launching pit by a 90-ton crane and jacking plates were welded. Once the jacking plates were welded and the steel floor assembly completed, the tunnel was jacked into place by utilizing a jacking assembly attached to the front portal of the tunnel and sitting on 1” steel plates. Figure 12 – Jacking runway The plate have pre-assembled jacking plates welded on top to provide a jacking surface for the Hydraulic jacking system. UHMW was placed between the jacking plates to provide a smooth surface for the tunnel to slide on. Two 153-ton capacity Hydraulic jacks working in tandem were used for the jacking operation. In addition to reduce friction during jacking operation, all steel plates where UHMW travelled had a heavy application of Shell SRS Grease 2000 Extreme to assist with friction reduction. The tunnel jacking was done in 5’ increments. The jacks were retracted once the 5’ stroke was completed, reset in predesignated holes in the 1” plate system and then jacking proceeds again. The tunnel was jacked into final position approximately 24 hrs after workblock commenced. Waterproofing was applied and a 24” CSP culvert was installed vertically to close gaps between the tunnel and the south shoring wall. The CSP was held in position during backfill operation and filled with granular fill. Approximately 12” of subballast was backfilled around and over the tunnel. This was a preferred over tradition lagging methods. Ballast was placed after the subballast layer was compacted. Finally, track panels were reinstated and surfacing was performed. Please refer to the construction schedule in Appendix A. Figure 13 - Jack set up in the pit Figure 14 – Tunnel push into final position Figure 15 – Track panels reinstated Figure 16 – Prepared tracks to resume train operations at end of work block CONCLUSION The Bramalea GO Station west pedestrian tunnel installation was completed in 44 hours and 4 hours ahead of the schedule without any injuries. The Metrolinx and CN teams undertook all the tasks per the work plan. Fortunately, none of the contingency plans needed to be executed. However, it was worth investing extensive time and effort in preparing contingency plans ahead of the work block to prepare for sudden and unexpected change of site conditions. Construction progress was communicated to the operation team regarding resuming train operations ahead of schedule. In conclusion, the chosen construction method, jack and push, was ideal for the tunnel installation based on the site conditions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - CN - Earthline Foundations and Shoring Ltd. - GeoTerre - Kenaidan Contracting Ltd. - Metrolinx - Terraprobe - Veresk Inc. - Western Mechanical Electrical Millwright Services Ltd. - Roc.ca Rail Consultants Inc. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Bramalea GO Station layout Figure 2 – Jacking general assembly in launching pit Figure 3 – Jack set up prior to pushing Figure 4 – Jack general arrangement Figure 5 – Tunnel loading diagram and calculations Figure 6 – Existing site condition Figure 7 – Install shoring wall, excavate pit and install jacking plates Figure 8 – Cast tunnel Figure 9 – Install hydraulic jack and prepare for tunnel installation Figure 10 – Remove track panels, excavate, jack and slide tunnel into final position Figure 11 – Backfill and reinstate track panels Figure 12 – Jacking runway Figure 13 - Jack set up in the pit Figure 14 – Tunnel push into final position Figure 15 – Track panels reinstated Figure 16 – Prepared tracks to resume train operations at end of work block Appendix A Pedestrian Tunnel Installation under CN Mainlines in 44 hours - Collaboration between CN and Metrolinx Birju Bhavsar, P.Eng. – Metrolinx Edward Wu, P.Eng., P.E. – CN Orlando Gutierrez, P.Eng.
Recommended publications
  • Appendix III Update on Bill 222: Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act

    Appendix III Update on Bill 222: Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act

    Appendix III Update on Bill 222: Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act November 23, 2020 Ms. Cheryl Davis Ministry of Transportation – Environmental Policy Office 777 Bay Street Suite 700 Toronto, ON M7A 2J8 Canada Dear Ms. Davis: Re: Bill 222 – Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act, 2020 (ERO #019-2566) Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above noted Environmental Registry of Ontario posting. The following comments are provided by Region of Peel staff as input into the proposed amendments to the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020, Public Service Works on Highways Act, and Transit-Oriented Communities Act, 2020. This letter is considered to be staff level comments. If additional comments are provided through a Regional Council resolution, they will be forwarded to Ministry staff for further consideration. The Region supports the goals of accelerating the delivery of major provincial public infrastructure projects such as transit and highways. Staff are supportive of these measures in order to strengthen communities, create jobs, increase critical services in the Province, and support future growth within the Region. However, further details on the mechanisms and regulations to implement these initiatives and the impacts on local municipal works is required. Staff continue to plan and advocate for the development of transit-oriented complete communities in Peel. Through continued partnership with our provincial and local counterparts, staff remain committed to planning for higher order transit and linear infrastructure to accommodate forecasted population and employment growth in the Region. Further, staff support exploring extending the streamlining initiatives to linear municipal infrastructure such water and wastewater.
  • (BRES) and Successful Integration of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) May 24, 2016

    (BRES) and Successful Integration of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) May 24, 2016

    Bolton Residential Expansion Study (BRES) and Successful Integration of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) May 24, 2016 The purpose of this memorandum is to review the professional literature pertaining to the potential develop- ment of a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in the Bolton Residential Expansion Study area, in response to the Region of Peel’s recent release of the Discussion Paper. The Discussion Paper includes the establishment of evaluation themes and criteria, which are based on provincial and regional polices, stakeholder and public comments. It should be noted that while the Discussion Paper and the Region’s development of criteria does not specifi- cally advocate for TOD, it is the intent of this memorandum to illustrate that TOD-centric planning will not only adequately address such criteria, but will also complement and enhance the Region’s planning principles, key points and/or themes found in stakeholder and public comments. In the following are research findings related to TOD generally, and specifically, theMetrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines For The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (September 2011) objectives. Additionally, following a review and assessment of the “Response to Comments Submitted on the Bolton Residential Expansion Study ROPA” submission prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (March 15, 2016), this memorandum evaluates some of the key arguments and assumptions made in this submission relative to the TOD research findings. Planning for Transit-Oriented Developments TOD policy and programs can result in catalytic development that creates walkable, livable neighborhoods around transit providing economic, livability and equitable benefits. The body of research on TODs in the United States has shown that TODs are more likely to succeed when project planning takes place in conjunction with transit system expansion.
  • 3 Feasibility Study for Proposed Rerouting of the Greater Toronto Rail Network

    3 Feasibility Study for Proposed Rerouting of the Greater Toronto Rail Network

    Clause 3 in Report No. 1 of Committee of the Whole was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting held on January 21, 2016. 3 Feasibility Study for Proposed Rerouting of the Greater Toronto Rail Network Committee of the Whole recommends: 1. Receipt of the presentation by Stephen Collins, Director, Infrastructure Management and Project Management Office. 2. Adoption of the following recommendations, as amended, in the report dated December 19, 2015 from Commissioner of Transportation Services: 1. Council formally request Metrolinx to undertake consultation with York Region, the Cities of Markham and Vaughan and the Town of Richmond Hill before proceeding with additional detailed studies relating to the rerouting of a freight rail proposal. 2. The Regional Clerk circulate a copy of this report to the Clerks of the Cities of Cambridge, Markham, Mississauga, Toronto, Vaughan, the Towns of Richmond Hill and Milton and Metrolinx. 1. Recommendation It is recommended that: 1. Council formally request Metrolinx to undertake consultation with York Region and the Cities of Markham and Vaughan before proceeding with additional detailed studies relating to the rerouting of a freight rail proposal. 2. The Regional Clerk circulate a copy of this report to the Clerks of the Cities of Cambridge, Markham, Mississauga, Toronto, Vaughan, Town of Milton and Metrolinx. Committee of the Whole 1 Transportation Services January 14, 2016 Feasibility Study for Proposed Rerouting of the Greater Toronto Rail Network 2. Purpose This report informs Council on the findings of a feasibility study commissioned by Cities of Cambridge, Mississauga, Toronto and Town of Milton to look at rerouting freight rail traffic to separate it from passenger rail services on the GO Transit Milton and Kitchener lines.
  • UPPER CANADA RAILWAY SOCIETY BOX 122 TERMINAL "A" TORONTO, ONTARIO Z JUNE 1981

    UPPER CANADA RAILWAY SOCIETY BOX 122 TERMINAL "A" TORONTO, ONTARIO Z JUNE 1981

    NCORPORATED 1952 NUMBER 380 JUNE 1981 UPPER CANADA RAILWAY SOCIETY BOX 122 TERMINAL "A" TORONTO, ONTARIO z JUNE 1981 The Newsletter is published monthly by the Upper Canada Railway Society, i941 Box 122, Terminal "A", Toronto, Ont. M5W 1A2. Editor: Stuart I. Westland, 78 Edenbridge Dr., Islington, Ontario, Canada M9A 3G2 Telephone (416) 239-5254 Assistant Editor: John D. Thompson (416) 759-1803 Activities Editor: Ed Campbell 255-1924 Please address all correspondence relative to the Newsletter to the Editor at the above address. The Newsletter is mailed monthly to members of the Society in good standing. Membership fee is $17 for January 1981 to December 1981 inclusive. Quote of the Month - (UCRS member and Director George Meek, in talking about the railfan hobby to a Buffalo Courier-Express reporter during the layover between the last runs of the TH&B Line Budd cars on April 25th): "I like trains, but I do not like the word "buff" because it also refers to nudity". —Lorne Brisbin, CN Superintendent of Operations, told the Canadian Transport Commission March 24th Review Committee hearing at Newmarket that the service at Newmarket and other stations where agency positions are to be removed should improve after passengers begin to use the Toronto (Concord) Servocentre. A toll-free telephone service is avail• able for the making of reservations, and tickets may be purchased on the train, by mail, or at any of four travel agencies in Newmarket. A representative of VIA Rail said that his company's intention is to hire a ticket agent to man the Newmarket Station from 6:00 to 7:30 a.m.
  • Kitchener GO Rail Service Expansion Preliminary Design Business Case March 2021

    Kitchener GO Rail Service Expansion Preliminary Design Business Case March 2021

    Kitchener GO Rail Service Expansion Preliminary Design Business Case March 2021 Kitchener GO Rail Service Expansion Preliminary Design Business Case March 2021 Contents Introduction 4 Background 5 Business Case Overview 5 The Case for Change 7 Introduction 8 Problem Statement 8 Key Drivers 8 Travel Behaviour 8 Transport Service Provision 8 Transport Infrastructure and Technology 9 Government Policy and Planning 9 Stakeholder Input 10 Summary of Key Drivers 11 Strategic Outcomes and Objectives 13 Strong Connections 13 Complete Travel Experiences 13 Sustainable Communities 13 Investment Options 14 Introduction 15 Option Development 15 Option Scoping 15 Business as Usual 16 Business as Usual with State of Good Repair Improvements (BAU+SOGR) 17 Option 1: Two-Way Service to Kitchener with Existing Crossing at Silver Junction 18 Option 2: Two-Way Service to Kitchener with Grade Separated Silver Junction 19 i Strategic Case 21 Introduction 22 Strategic Evaluation 22 Strong Connections 22 Complete Travel Experiences 27 Sustainable Communities 29 Strategic Case Summary 31 Economic Case 33 Introduction 34 Methodology 34 Costs 35 Optimism Bias 36 User Impacts 37 External Impacts 37 Wider Economic Impacts 38 Economic Case Summary 39 Financial Case 40 Introduction 41 Capital Costs 41 Operating and Maintenance Costs 41 Revenue Impacts 42 Funding Sources 42 Financial Case Summary 42 Deliverability and Operations Case 44 Introduction 45 Project Delivery 45 Project Sponsor and Governance Arrangements 45 ii Major Project Components 45 Environmental Assessment
  • Update on Bill 222 Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act.Pdf

    Update on Bill 222 Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act.Pdf

    REPORT Meeting Date: 2021-01-14 Regional Council REPORT TITLE: Update on Bill 222: Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act FROM: Andrea Warren, Interim Commissioner of Public Works RECOMMENDATION That the comments on Bill 222: Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act, outlined in the report of the Interim Commissioner of Public Works, titled “Update on Bill 222: Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act”, be endorsed; And further, that a copy of the subject report be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the City of Brampton, the Town of Caledon and the City of Mississauga. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS On October 22, 2020, the Provincial government introduced Bill: 222 Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act. The Bill received third reading on December 3, 2020, which was the day of the Provincial legislature, and received Royal Assent on December 8, 2020. The legislative changes introduced through Bill 222 are aimed at providing the Province and municipalities with legislative tools to expedite major public transportation initiatives. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has invited municipalities to consult with Provincial ministries on the challenges and barriers to deliver local linear infrastructure. Staff are supportive of the goals of accelerating the delivery of major Provincial public infrastructure projects such as transit, highways and local linear infrastructure projects and provided a comment letter back to the Province on November 23, 2020. Regional comments and a summary of the legislative changes are highlighted in Appendix III of the report and Council endorsement is sought of the staff comments. DISCUSSION 1. Background On October 22, 2020, the provincial government introduced Bill 222: Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act which introduced a number of legislative measures, policy changes and communication opportunities to accelerate the delivery of major public (infrastructure) projects (Appendix I).
  • Feasibility Study and Business Case of Construction The

    Feasibility Study and Business Case of Construction The

    RE:EX16.18 Appendix 1 Report Feasibility Study and Business Case of Constructing the Missing Link by IBI Group with Stantec August 19, 2015 IBI GROUP REPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS CASE OF CONSTRUCTING THE MISSING LINK Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Mississauga PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study of the Missing Link in Toronto's Rail Network REPORT TITLE: Feasibility Study and Business Case of Constructing the Missing Link IBI REFERENCE: TO-38736 VERSION: DIGITAL MASTER: J:\38736_MissingLink\10.0 Reports\TTR_Missing Link Feasibility2015-08-06.docx\2015-08-19\SD ORIGINATOR: Lee Sims REVIEWER: [Name] AUTHORIZATION: [Name] CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: August 19, 2015 IBI GROUP REPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS CASE OF CONSTRUCTING THE MISSING LINK Executive Summary Attached is a report on the feasibility of adding the “Missing Link” to the Greater Toronto rail network. The Missing Link is a new rail corridor linking the CN bypass line at Bramalea with the CP through route near the Milton-Mississauga border. The purpose of the Missing Link is to separate major through rail freight flows from passenger services on the GO Transit Milton and Kitchener lines. Just constructing the Missing Link does not fulfil all the requirements for rerouting of through freight flows; this requires upgrading of several other lines and providing new connections between CP and CN. Constructing the Missing Link and the other rail improvements has three major benefits: • It eliminates the impacts of the widening of the Milton and Kitchener GO Transit routes. These will be considerable and will be felt in the centres of Mississauga and Brampton.
  • Bramalea GO Mobility Hub Land Use Assessment Study(Pdf)

    Bramalea GO Mobility Hub Land Use Assessment Study(Pdf)

    Bramalea GO Mobility Hub Land Use Assessment Study April 5th, 2019 Prepared for Prepared by INCREMENTI CONSULTING LTD. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL INCREMENTI CONSULTING LTD. Incrementi Consulting Ltd. Mr. Alex Taranu, FRAIC, FCIP, OAA, RPP 200 University Avenue West Senior Advisor, Architectural Design Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 City of Brampton Brampton, ON Subject: Bramalea Go Mobility Hub: Land Use Assessment Study Dear Mr. Taranu, Incrementi Consulting is pleased to provide the City of Brampton with this Bramalea GO Mobility Hub Land Use Assessment Study. The project team has conducted a comprehensive research process and rigorous planning exercises to ultimately identify a final recommended development scenario for the Bramalea GO Station Area. We believe that our recommendations will allow for innovative redevelopment to take place, leveraging unique locational opportunities to introduce additional new employment uses to the industrial area. This transformation will allow the Bramalea GO Station Area to create a more liveable community and establish itself as Brampton’s technology and innovation hub. We thank you for this rewarding opportunity to collaborate with the City of Brampton over the last four months. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected]. Sincerely, Nhel Soriano Project Manager Incrementi Consulting Acknowledgment Note Our Client Incrementi Consulting Ltd. would like to extend our sincere gratitude to our client, Alex Taranu, Senior Advisor of Architectural Design, City of Brampton, who gave us a valuable opportunity to conduct this challenging and rewarding land use assessment study. We appreciate the time taken out of his busy schedule to arrange presentations, on-site visits, and staying in touch through emails and phone calls.
  • In Sub-Section 6.5.5.2 of the Environmental Impact Statemen

    In Sub-Section 6.5.5.2 of the Environmental Impact Statemen

    August 31, 2017 IR2.1 Consideration of non-federal laws Rationale: In sub-section 6.5.5.2 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) stated that certain provincial laws have been taken into consideration where appropriate to ensure completeness. While CN referenced some non- federal laws in various sections of the EIS, it is not clear which laws CN is referring to in sub-section 6.5.5.2, and what is meant by the phrases “taken into consideration” and “to ensure completeness”. Information Request: a) Provide a table summarizing all federal, provincial and municipal (regional and town) laws and by-laws that CN has taken into consideration in the planning for the Milton Logistics Hub Project (the Project) and development of its EIS and explain what is meant by “taken into consideration” and “to ensure completeness”. The table must include a description of which laws apply to the Project and which have been “considered to ensure completeness”. Specify how these have been considered in the environmental assessment; for example, whether the laws informed project design, selected mitigation measures, the criteria used to determine the significance of the Project’s effects, methodological approaches used by CN or other relevant matters. CN Response: Clarification of Statement in the EIS EIS Section 6.5.5 as well as the Socio-Economic Baseline TDR, EIS Appendix E.12 describes land and resource use activities, the provincial and municipal planning framework, and key documents in order to provide context for the assessment of potential effects on socio- economic conditions.
  • Planning, Design and Development Committee Item Q1 for May 9, 2011

    Planning, Design and Development Committee Item Q1 for May 9, 2011

    TOWN HALL 6311 Old Church Road, Caledon, ON L7C1J6 Town of caledon 905,584.227211.888.CALED0N IFAX 905.584.43251 www.caledon.ca March 28, 2011 RECEIVED CLERK'S DEPT. Region of Peel 10 Peel Centre Drive APR 0 4 2011 Brampton, Ontario L6T4B9 REG. NO.: FILE NO.: Attention: Ms. Carol Reid, Clerk PLANNING, DESIGN &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Dear Ms. Reid: RE: Bolton Commuter Rail Service - Feasibility Study At the regular meeting of Council held on March 22, 2011, Council received Report PD-2011-019 regarding the Bolton Commuter Rail Service - Feasibility Study. The following was adopted: ThatReport PD-2011-019 regarding Bolton Commuter Rail Service Feasibility Study-Metrolinx be received; and That Metrolinx be requested to expedite the implementation of GO commuter rail service to Bolton and accordingly initiate the property protection process,environmental assessment studyand detailed design process;and That Metrolinx be requested to amend its capital budget to include planning, augmentation and construction within a 10-year priority time frame tofacilitate early implementation for the GOrail service to Bolton; and That Council direct staff to work with the Region of Peel to undertake necessary steps to initiate the Official Plan Amendments as appropriate todesignate the location ofthe preferred GOstation and layover facility site;and That a copy ofReport PD-2011-019 andtheresulting Council resolution be forwarded to Metrolinx, the Regions ofPeel and York and the Cities of Brampton, Mississauga and Vaughan. Please find attached a copy of Report PD-2011-019. If you have any questions regarding the report, please contact Kant Chawla, Senior Transportation Planner at 905-584-2272- ext: 4293 or [email protected].
  • Brief: Karl Junkin to John Gerretsen

    Brief: Karl Junkin to John Gerretsen

    Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 To the Honourable John Gerrettsen, Purpose The contents of this document are to illustrate to The Crown, as clearly as possible, serious concerns and consequences of the proposal put forward by Metrolinx for the Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union-Pearson Rail Link, on the CN/GO Weston Subdivision between Bathurst Street and Goreway Drive. Background The Georgetown GO Corridor has been serviced by rail by GO Transit since 1974. It has been studied for expansion to full-day service for about 20 years. Studies and projections indicate the corridor has the highest potential for growth in the GO Transit rail network. Metrolinx is a corporation of The Crown, setup to oversee the planning and implementation of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Metrolinx is the proponent of the Georgetown South Service Expansion (GSSE) project, including the Union-Pearson Rail Link (UPRL) as part of the same Environmental Assessment (EA). The Crown’s initiative to have a body put into place for coordinating the various local transit agencies’ and GO Transit’s efforts to improve transit services in the GTHA is laudable. The Crown deserves credit for taking leadership on this issue after over a decade of neglect that started in the 1990s. The Crown setup the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority in June, 2006, branded it Metrolinx in December, 2007, and merged it with GO Transit in May, 2009. The RTP was adopted in November, 2008.
  • Potential Increase of Freight Rail Traffic in York Region Purpose

    Potential Increase of Freight Rail Traffic in York Region Purpose

    Agenda Item 4.0 Staff Report for Council Meeting Date of Meeting: October 10, 2017 Report Number: SRPRS.17.174 Department: Planning and Regulatory Services Division: Development Engineering and Transportation Subject: Potential Increase of Freight Rail Traffic in York Region Purpose: The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the proposal to re-route freight rail traffic through York Region and to seek Council’s support of the recommendations set out in the Brief prepared by York Region. Recommendation(s): a) That Council endorse the Brief prepared by York Region entitled Potential Increase of Freight Rail Traffic in York Region, dated May 2017, with a cover memo, dated September 22, 2017, and attached as Appendix A to SRPRS.17.174; b) That Council adopt the recommendations contained in the Brief as the Town’s position with respect to the construction of the Missing Link proposal, and the rerouting of freight rail traffic through York Region; c) That the Town Clerk forward a copy of SRPRS.17.174 to York Region, the City of Markham, and the City of Vaughan; and, d) That staff be directed to continue to work with York Region with respect to the re- routing of the CP rail corridor. Contact Person: Dan Terzievski, Director, Development Engineering and Transportation: 905-747-6358 and/or Ahsun Lee, Transportation Engineer: 905-771 2515 Submitted by: "Signed version on file in the Office of the Clerk" Kelvin Kwan Commissioner of Planning and Regulatory Services 35 Town of Richmond Hill – Council Meeting Date of Meeting: October 10,