Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[zang]

That won't happen in Canada. Even in my most extreme fantastical worlds, there is no way that would work. Canada is much too larger, worth a vast network with companies that are too dependent on that not happening that no government hopeful would ever speak of that.

Of course. But it still doesn't mean privatizing them in the first place wasn't one of the worst, most costly mistakes we've made as a nation. :/

 

[crs1026]

What we need really is a re-nationalization of railroads here in Canada so we can improve ALL of the routes passenger rail uses.

Well, no. We are talking about rearranging a 220-mile corridor in our densest region versus a network of thousands of miles of line.

There's no reason to nationalise (at a futile cost) just to get that. But maybe a regional rearrangement might be affordable.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Of course. But it still doesn't mean privatizing them in the first place wasn't one of the worst, most costly mistakes we've made as a nation. :/

That may be true, but it is time to move forward and work with what we have. And even with HSR, we are not going to want freight on those rails.

 

[generalcanada]

Just need to purchase enough shares in CN and CPKC to obtain a controlling stake and then (or probably already before that!) fantasy has no limits…

fk that. just take it. what are they going to do sue the government? section 33 BABYYY

 

[zang]

fk that. just take it. what are they going to do sue the government? section 33 BABYYY

For that matter, just take the rails themselves and not the corporate governance. See how great CPKC thinks it is to constantly be at the whims of the organization that owns the steel.

I'd also like to point out that the clause probably isn't important here regardless, as it's corporations and not people who'd stand to lose. Eminent domain would compensate at fair market value for their losses.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I have a hard time believing that Peterborough is so politically important to either the federal or provincial government that HSR must go through it. If it was that important, VIA would still be funded to run there and/or GO would service it.

It strikes me that the routing through Peterborough is an outfall from the original HFR project utilizing the abandoned ROW. It will likely need a lot of alteration for the high speeds but I think a good portion of it will remain useable. I also suspect that a lot of the adjacent land in the Kaladar-Sharbot Lake area is Crown owned. Jumping on existing CN or CPKC rights-of-way muddies ownership and assumes the alignments are suitable for the higher speeds. Pretty much any other southern Ontario route would mostly certainly have be on 100% expropriated land.

I would not be surprised at all if Peterborough ends up with more of a "park and ride" type station on a new alignment south of Highway 115.

 

[zang]

I would not be surprised at all if Peterborough ends up with more of a "park and ride" type station on a new alignment south of Highway 115.

Just what rail in this province needs, more train station parking lots in the middle of nowhere.

 

[nfitz]

It's not a "problem" unless you insist on making it one. Namely in this case you don't like how Stats Can has a larger area for the CMA of Quebec City. But if you know anything about how they define CMAs, you know it's based on the activity between those communities. That's why Toronto's CMA is over 5900 km2.

Like? My points are that there's little east of Quebec, and a lot more people just west of Toronto than east of Montreal.

Are you being intentionally misleading?

 

[crs1026]

I'd also like to point out that the clause probably isn't important here regardless, as it's corporations and not people who'd stand to lose. Eminent domain would compensate at fair market value for their losses.

Guess you don't have RRSP's or contribute to a pension plan. Have a look at who owns CN and CPKC. A lot of people effectively buy groceries with their dividends.

- Paul

 

[zang]

Guess you don't have RRSP's or contribute to a pension plan. Have a look at who owns CN and CPKC. A lot of people effectively buy groceries with their dividends.

- Paul

And? Should personal retirement growth trump functional passenger rail in this country?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Just what rail in this province needs, more train station parking lots in the middle of nowhere.

I mean it's not uncommon in europe either for smaller centres. The reality is that downtown stations are expensive and generally not worth the additional costs for lower ridership locations. I would be disappointed if Alto did not pursue Gare Centrale and Union Station, but even Ottawa is likely going to end up with a suburban station as it currently operates with.

Gare De Macon-Loche TGV for example is a suburban station with a parking lot in France - there are many more examples. I would expect Peterborough to end up with something like this with bus connections into town. it keeps development costs low and at a minimal impact to ridership as these small communities would have very low walk-up traffic anyway even with stations positioned downtown. The people of Peterborough taking Alto will likely be driving or taking a taxi / being dropped off / taking transit anyway in the vast majority of cases.

 

[micheal_can]

Just what rail in this province needs, more train station parking lots in the middle of nowhere.

A well planned placement can be both great for those that would need to drive to it and for those that could take transit. It could even spur high density growth around it.

 

[kEiThZ]

The same reason Airports care about how people get to the airport. You want the most amount of people to chose it over any other way.

Airports almost never care about modal share on access until they become so busy that parking is practically impossible. There's no risk of that happening in Quebec City. Not in the least because they could also simply build a station at the airport.

As usual, you're being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

[evandyk]

Quebec is #7, but Hamilton, KW, London, St. Catherines/Niagara and Windsor are #9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, so connecting that grouping would bring much more utility than Quebec City. But we all know the politics involved, so Quebec City will be in no matter what.

 

[micheal_can]

Airports almost never care about modal share on access until they become so busy that parking is practically impossible. There's no risk of that happening in Quebec City. Not in the least because they could also simply build a station at the airport.

As usual, you're being argumentative for the sake of it.

Do we want to repeat the mistakes of the past, or learn from them? Airports need clear approaches. Railways do not. They can go under or around things. So,having stations that can be accessed by as many means as possible is key. I would say that Union has that. So does Central. However, for Quebec City, Levis would need to expand their transit to the station.

Or, we do not learn and just build massive parking garages. I'd prefer that we learn and make this as successful as possible.