|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
cplchanb
Senior Member
last sentence can get extra spicy; they might intend to sue for it.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I'm a bit puzzled where this discussion has derailed as I have neither felt personally attacked nor intended to cause any upset.
).
I'll now try to move from the interpersonal back to the argumentative level:
Thank you very much for appreciating my contributions, just like I appreciate your contributions, for which I have never intended to put their respectful and insult-free character in doubt.
Understood and fully acknowledged, but having re-read my post #4920 and your post #4921 multiple times, I still can see why I misunderstood your post as defending the Gananoque cut-off:
Please accept my sincere apologies for having given you that feeling and rest assured that none of my comments was intended to be hostile! I'm glad to hear that you would find such behaviour so much out of character that you almost seem to suspect that there must be a reason which affects my mood negatively (actually: the contrary is true as I'm eagerly awaiting the birth of our first child, but maybe that affects my mood indeed in unexpected ways...
).I'll now try to move from the interpersonal back to the argumentative level:
That is news to me (as in: I always assumed that railroads own a ROW which is 100 feet wide, but I'm more than willing to believe that there might be exceptions to that rule), but would you happen to have a source or register where one can look up what is actually owned by whom?
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Considering there's no-one's word save for BBD's (have they ever lied?) and the contract process was overseen by independent contractors and overseers, it's a bit rich for BBD to claim a right to "twice submitting a revised proposal".
I say take it to court...if it can ever get that far.
I'm afraid if this is getting testy, you provide reference of ownership and availability. We can then discuss the costs and do-ability later. CN and CP have both made it very clear that they have no land for sale for this purpose (edit: Along the waterfront route), let alone the sale of that land, since it's still an active corridor, would have to be approved by the CTA and others.
CN is a private company, and acts that way. There are powers under the Transportation and Crossing and Relocation Acts that the Feds have, but haven't used since...well...since they had their spine removed.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
You should be able to get an approximate indication of the widths, if you look at the (approximate) property ownership lines on county-(region-)-level or municipal-level mapping in Ontario.
Let's look at Whibty for an example. Their mapping tool is http://explorecommunity.whitby.ca/OnPointWebsite/WebPages/Map/FundyViewer.aspx You can see from the property lines over the air photo, that the CN track is in the middle to south of their alignment. Most of the space between the CN track and the GO track is owned by CN. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a measurement tool on the Whitby site.
The Region of Durham map tool is at https://geoapps.durham.ca/Viewer/index.html?viewer=YourDurham.YourDurham and includes a measurement tool - but no air photos that I can see. But easy to measure, and the row comes in at about 23.7 metres wide here I get over 24 metres elsewhere.. About 80 feet wide.
There's certainly not any space south of the existing GO tracks on MTO land for any further tracks.
Amusingly, one can use such tools to see what happened to the land that was once the Havelock subdivision, and it becomes evident, that some pieces of it have already been sold off, and amalgamated with adjacent properties. Take a look at downtown Tweed for example ...
crs1026
Senior Member
At the risk of deja vu.....
I can't imagine for a moment that the Peterboro route will require a less thorough public consultation and EA than any other route (including the Kingston line, if it were 4-tracked). There are people with opposing interests who might well take VIA to court if it bypassed that. #trieditwithpipelines
The Peterboro line is new construction, let's face facts.
-The Peterboro line was engineered in the 1800's. Engineering standards have changed and a much higher standard than has ever been applied will have to be retrofitted
- Previous bridges have been converted to bike trails.
- Culverts and other load-bearing structures haven't carried a load since 1970's.
- Concrete has crumbled.
- Watercourses have seeped into the fill in spots, the bikes and ATV's can go around or over that. Drainage will have to be updated and soft spots stabilised.
- The entire route from Tapscott to Glen Tay will need to be undercut, new subgrade applied.
- The line will have to be completely assessed - boreholes, flora and fauna, the whole bit. How many migratory patterns will be impaired by fencing? (There will be fencing)
- There is absolutely no reason to believe that the current fills meet civil standards for weight or dynamic forces of 120+ mph trains (even if the current plan is only to run at 95-110, any prudent engineer will future proof the design).
- At least a couple miles of curvature will have to be reengineered and line relocated - yes, in the Canadian Shield. Likely lots of blasting and rock fill for those.
It may be slightly more work to engineer a new line, blast out the rock in places, and fill in others, from Pittsburgish up to Portland. Roughly following Highway 15, that's about 30 miles of new construction. Much of that land is already cleared, although public pressure might argue to preserve that land and route through the bush. It's another 16 miles from Portland to Smiths Falls on the old CNOR. So 30 miles new construction and 16 reconstructed miles.
Even if one argues for a separation Toronto to Kingston, the Gananoque cutoff removes the need for 36 miles of new double track (Kings to Brockville.). So it's close to a wash.
Peterboro route is 94 reconstructed miles Glen Tay - Havelock, 98 miles reclaimed miles Havelock-Agincourt, There is also 15 miles new construction Smiths Falls - Glen Tay, and 8 miles Agincourt- Leaside. (You can't argue that CN will be hard to deal with and then argue that CP will be happy to accommodate the latter.) That includes two bridges over the Don Valley. And then four miles reclaimed line (one huge bridge) Leaside-Don.
Lastly, I don't believe for a moment that VIA will be able to maintain effective service to Kingston, no matter how many assurances they have given. Once the new line opens, CN will want its tracks back. Trains Toronto-Brantford London May 1 1988: 8 each way Trains Toronto-Brantford-London today? 5 each way.
The Havelock line has been broached publicly by VIA and even the Minister so frequently recently that I do believe it will prevail. I'm not crying sour grapes, but..... If VIA has better numbers that point the comparison differently, I would like to see them.
- Paul
I can't imagine for a moment that the Peterboro route will require a less thorough public consultation and EA than any other route (including the Kingston line, if it were 4-tracked). There are people with opposing interests who might well take VIA to court if it bypassed that. #trieditwithpipelines
The Peterboro line is new construction, let's face facts.
-The Peterboro line was engineered in the 1800's. Engineering standards have changed and a much higher standard than has ever been applied will have to be retrofitted
- Previous bridges have been converted to bike trails.
- Culverts and other load-bearing structures haven't carried a load since 1970's.
- Concrete has crumbled.
- Watercourses have seeped into the fill in spots, the bikes and ATV's can go around or over that. Drainage will have to be updated and soft spots stabilised.
- The entire route from Tapscott to Glen Tay will need to be undercut, new subgrade applied.
- The line will have to be completely assessed - boreholes, flora and fauna, the whole bit. How many migratory patterns will be impaired by fencing? (There will be fencing)
- There is absolutely no reason to believe that the current fills meet civil standards for weight or dynamic forces of 120+ mph trains (even if the current plan is only to run at 95-110, any prudent engineer will future proof the design).
- At least a couple miles of curvature will have to be reengineered and line relocated - yes, in the Canadian Shield. Likely lots of blasting and rock fill for those.
It may be slightly more work to engineer a new line, blast out the rock in places, and fill in others, from Pittsburgish up to Portland. Roughly following Highway 15, that's about 30 miles of new construction. Much of that land is already cleared, although public pressure might argue to preserve that land and route through the bush. It's another 16 miles from Portland to Smiths Falls on the old CNOR. So 30 miles new construction and 16 reconstructed miles.
Even if one argues for a separation Toronto to Kingston, the Gananoque cutoff removes the need for 36 miles of new double track (Kings to Brockville.). So it's close to a wash.
Peterboro route is 94 reconstructed miles Glen Tay - Havelock, 98 miles reclaimed miles Havelock-Agincourt, There is also 15 miles new construction Smiths Falls - Glen Tay, and 8 miles Agincourt- Leaside. (You can't argue that CN will be hard to deal with and then argue that CP will be happy to accommodate the latter.) That includes two bridges over the Don Valley. And then four miles reclaimed line (one huge bridge) Leaside-Don.
Lastly, I don't believe for a moment that VIA will be able to maintain effective service to Kingston, no matter how many assurances they have given. Once the new line opens, CN will want its tracks back. Trains Toronto-Brantford London May 1 1988: 8 each way Trains Toronto-Brantford-London today? 5 each way.
The Havelock line has been broached publicly by VIA and even the Minister so frequently recently that I do believe it will prevail. I'm not crying sour grapes, but..... If VIA has better numbers that point the comparison differently, I would like to see them.
- Paul
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt that they want to show their stakeholders that they are fighting hard to justify the trust the government (and by extension: the taxpayers) have placed in them by paying them dividends in the form of Canadian jobs secured and local economic activity stimulated. It is their right to "evaluate [their] options" and to challenge any decision which affects them negatively, but I have yet to see any statement from their side which challenges the independence of the fairness advisor or the following statement made by YDS during the press conference:
[Skip to 13:37]
steveintoronto
Superstar
^ For some odd reason, the CTA thinks differently on these matters, and they are the first line of arbiters in interpreting the relevant Acts.
But let's consider for a moment the position of all the naysayers stating (in effect) "P'bro can't happen, because X,Y,Z".
I disagree, however, the case has been made for the P'bro route, and we'll see what private investors think ostensibly along with the InfraBank...so meantime, for all those naysayers:
Show me the money! Feel absolutely free to produce land-titles * and the massive costs* of doing it the way the naysayers wish.
" (and yet again, as I documented much earlier in this forum almost the entire P'bro route save what CP retains is in *local government hands* save for one small stretch, owned by Bell Canada...and under various Utility Acts, provincial and federal, they must *share access*!!!) The Trans-Canada Trail owns nothing, save for a lease, and they'll be accommodated with a parallel route anyway. All been discussed and itemized, referenced much earlier in this string.
I'm going to be glad when the report comes out in a few weeks, and Enterprise has a chance to comment on it.
But meantime, what some posters *feel* can happen, and what the Law says, let alone practicability, makes Doug Ford look like a genius.
But let's consider for a moment the position of all the naysayers stating (in effect) "P'bro can't happen, because X,Y,Z".
I disagree, however, the case has been made for the P'bro route, and we'll see what private investors think ostensibly along with the InfraBank...so meantime, for all those naysayers:
Show me the money! Feel absolutely free to produce land-titles * and the massive costs* of doing it the way the naysayers wish.
" (and yet again, as I documented much earlier in this forum almost the entire P'bro route save what CP retains is in *local government hands* save for one small stretch, owned by Bell Canada...and under various Utility Acts, provincial and federal, they must *share access*!!!) The Trans-Canada Trail owns nothing, save for a lease, and they'll be accommodated with a parallel route anyway. All been discussed and itemized, referenced much earlier in this string.
I'm going to be glad when the report comes out in a few weeks, and Enterprise has a chance to comment on it.
But meantime, what some posters *feel* can happen, and what the Law says, let alone practicability, makes Doug Ford look like a genius.
Northern Light
Superstar
Excellent find.
The ownership template shows the land between the GO sub and the 401 as belonging to the MTO with a mostly variable ROW of 32m-50m though there are choke points.
While much of the land between the CN tracks and the GO sub is CN's, this too varies. The ownership template shows, for instance that the land between the GO Whitby Station and the CN tracks belongs to GO/MTO.
The place I had seen a lot of this real estate ownership structure was from an EA process initiated some time ago for widening the 401 from Salem Rd, to Courtice.
I can't seem to find any of that material online anymore, but it showed the land the MTO was contemplating using for said expansion, and much of it was the land between the existing 401 and the GO sub.
The expansion took various amounts from some to all of said land depending on the section.
Suffice to say, there is sufficient land north of the existing tracks (for this section) for the most part, with some challenges were CN uncooperative.
***
All of which is to say, don't confuse my championing of this idea for a dissing of the PTBO route.
Its not.
Its an argument that this is a do-able, useful project, of modest scale, which can be delivered relatively quickly.
Were it a priority, all or the bulk of this could be delivered by 2023.
I would be exceedingly surprised if the same could be said for PTBO.
This is something in the near term.
steveintoronto
Superstar
For Metrolinx or VIA?
So are you agreeing that this isn't anything to do with HFR?
steveintoronto
Superstar
One poster writes:
"Take a look at downtown Tweed for instance".
OK, let's:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tw...f249c7fca1ec9189!8m2!3d44.474728!4d-77.310249
The Trail continues right through town. Not one building on the RoW. Companies might be using it while the Township/County looks the other way, might even be leasing, but doubtful, but they certainly don't own it. And can't build on it. The Ontario Trails Act would prevent that even if they did own it, which they don't.
I've researched it all years back in this very string. Once again: Show reference to your claim!
"Take a look at downtown Tweed for instance".
OK, let's:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tw...f249c7fca1ec9189!8m2!3d44.474728!4d-77.310249
The Trail continues right through town. Not one building on the RoW. Companies might be using it while the Township/County looks the other way, might even be leasing, but doubtful, but they certainly don't own it. And can't build on it. The Ontario Trails Act would prevent that even if they did own it, which they don't.
I've researched it all years back in this very string. Once again: Show reference to your claim!
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't think I would go that far.
I'm discussing a stand-alone segment (or two) of track work that would arguably allow something approaching HFR on the existing corridor.
Its not proposing, at this time, attempting to build a completely alternate proposal (that is to say a complete VIA owned section for the entire length of the existing routing.
But my proposal could play a role in a larger project, if so desired, over time.
I'm simply not getting that far ahead of myself, with a project that would then be vastly more expensive; and were we to go that route, then I think we'd have to begin talking HSR in the longer term as the justification.
But we're not there. My proposal is limited scope investment where its comparatively easy and low cost to drive greater track speed and reliability; that's useful regardless of whether a secondary route is pursued or whether the same project is later made larger and more elaborate.
Garuda
Active Member
Railroad property widths are the same standard width of public roads in Ontario - 66ft (20.12m). So it's safe to assume that most rights of way are this width for single or double tracks in most areas of the province.
Within the GTA of course, that could be different as those widths are gradually widened.
niftz, Some conservation authorities have really good online maps with satellite images and measuring tools, others... are way in the past. Perhaps the CA for this area can help you out.
smallspy
Senior Member
Aluminum can absolutely be repaired, even if cracked. The repair, however, is trickier than that done to steel, and frequently involves additional processes.
Those rehabbed cars had extremely major work done to them - they were taken right down to the shells, and had quite a bit of new structure welded into them. The LRC rehab contract is what led to IRSI going bankrupt, as they greatly underestimated the amount of work necessary to repair the cars.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
asher__jo
Active Member
Why is this route preferred? (Besides being more direct to Peterborough and Ottawa)