As an aside, sometimes it can difficult to track old ROWs if they were abandoned long ago enough or built over, even if you have an old route map.
My favourite tool is the Google Earth KMZ file that floats around here once in a while. There’s two versions; one has Radial Railways and all streetcar lines, the other does not (but is more up-to-date on alignments and stations for actual railways). I can share the file if anyone’s interested.
For passenger or freight, which of these segments, if any, offer a compelling case for reactivation?
Obviously, this is a matter of who you ask and what the priorities are. Some motivations are obvious, and I'll start with the "bad" ones: Some 'transit nerds' don't consider merit beyond how they appear on a map, or simply hold nostalgia for a particular line. They're ambitious, but don't dive into specifics to make informed calls to action because many really
aren't needed. In the real world, we MUST start by acknowledging that their utility existed under particular circumstances (this is my core logic); our basis is whether or not that
original or a
new use case (re-)emerges. Much hard work was already done on these corridors, so we might be hard-pressed to find a better route (as a whole) anyhow. Finally, we must consider freight
first, because they are the ones who had/have tangible financial reasons to build, abandon and rebuild railroads. Governments might have reasons, but they must be
very solid, as they lack the means and incentives that otherwise grease these wheels.
I'm establishing all this because the belief that rebuilding these is a non-starter is only true if we accept that the railroads are going to continue their current business model- and things are never constant. The challenge today is that it's pretty hard to know if there is merit for reactivating a line, because
all sectors appear disinterested. But with that, these are my two criteria an abandoned corridor must meet:
A: the passenger case is ridiculously strong: it either connects two closely tied towns/cities or can function as an urban service that meets a planned (or unplanned) need inside an urban area better (ie, cheaper) than a new-build.
B: It makes the freight railroad's lives easier (even if not overwhelmingly so). They must get their pound.
C: The Fallacy- Economic gains would exceed the cost, outside of any notion of financial tradeoffs. Simply stating that if we built it tomorrow, it'd make people's lives better, is disconnected from reality.
So back to the original question. Where is there justification to rebuild a railway
today? Straight out the gate, I am from Hamilton, so I'll appear biased (these discussions always are) but that's why I am only commenting there. My picks all hinge on an assumption that we see the utility of retaining similarly divested rail in the entire GO Network already (Barrie comes to mind). The difference is that Toronto/GO actively pursued retaining them while Hamilton did not/could not. How
Ambitious.
1. The CN Beach Sub (Burlington Beach) is my first and strongest candidate.
Today's RTPs seem to focus all transit around Hamilton's western gateway- the 403 and CN/CP rail corridors- despite the city being fundamentally connected to the GTA in TWO places, not one. If we accept regional travel is ~mirrored by the highway system, then GO cannot ever compete with driving for those closer to Confederation GO (the QEW) than Hamilton Centre/West Harbour (so everyone east of about Sherman) as it heads west around the bay- this gives half of Hamilton and all of Niagara a raw deal. We seem to assume that poor
local transit demand indicates minimal regional demand, despite HSR #11's irrelevance, vast QEW traffic, and Confederation GO's existence suggesting the contrary. Reimagining the Beach sub (but grade-separated) could pull CN (and CP) traffic out of western Hamilton, separate+improve freight access to the resurging North End, and enable better transit service for East Hamilton, Niagara,
and downtown at the
same time. The MTO is well aware of the QEW's congestion; if they examined a tunnelled highway under the lake for relief, I'd say a parallel railway is seriously competitive.
2. Second up is CN's H&LER sub (idk CN's name) from Caledonia to Hamilton Centre.
For being abandoned in the 90s, this one's embarrassing. With its geographic divide, this ensured the mountain remains locally & regionally isolated, and more car-dependent than most GTHA suburbs for decades to come. There is no longer a clear path for GO or CN/CP to reach YHM, despite industry rapidly clustering around it and the old corridor itself. And, with the railway in use south of Caledonia, we could link Port Dover. Unfortunately, being only single-tracked pushes it dangerously close to non-starter territory if we want
good rail access. Maybe the city should've screwed its head on better, because now there's a dangerous freeway but no rail.
3. This final one is more of an unfortunate loss, because it's fairly hard to justify: rebuilding one of the railways connecting Cambridge to Brantford.
This would better link KW-C, Guelph, Hamilton, and Brantford, and while the need may not explicitly be present today, its loss reinforces the massive gap in infrastructure between these cities. Unfortunately it is quite hard to tell what the demand here actually is, because every road link is either slow or indirect, and proper transit between the two (if one could even call GO bus 17 that) has only existed for... a few months. This one firmly fits into the 'C' criteria; there are probably benefits, but there is no explicit need worth compromising existing plans over.
beta.ctvnews.ca
