News   Nov 08, 2024
 349     0 
News   Nov 08, 2024
 791     3 
News   Nov 08, 2024
 458     0 

Quebec-Windsor Corridor

What about a land swap? They give up the Midtown Corridor and Milton line to the new junction, and they get the land to lay tracks? If worded right, it could be spun as a deal for the people in the GTA.
This is exactly what I had in mind. CPKC gives us the Milton line and Lambton Yard, and we give them land parralel to the 413 to construct the western portion of the bypass/ new subdivision.

Also give CPKC land in West Humber, near highway 50 in Vaughan to construct a new marshaling yard. Close to CPKC's Intermodal yard. This is to make up for losing Lambton and eventually Agincourt.

Give CPKC land parallel to the 407, east of Mactier and in return they give us the Midtown line and Agincourt yard.
 
Last edited:
^ It would be foolish to conceive a GTA bypass proposal without considering and applying the needs and lessons of other major cities eg Winnipeg Regina Saskatoon Calgary Edmonton, for whom the removal of downtown rail lines in favour of bypasses is equally a game changer..... and then add up the cost to the nation to implement all of these. The GTA won't see federal money for this idea without including all of these cities in the plan. Can Ontario go it alone on funding ?
Now add up all the extra miles that such a bypass would add to the routing, and the competitive impact of that added train-mileage and trip time, on CPKC, and the difficulty of establishing a method to equilibrate the "fairness" of this impact between CP and CN. And consider the impact on the valuation of CP's assets.
I really think this idea makes eminent sense, but is a "bridge too far" for our system. While I would not argue for the total expropriation and nationalisation of the rail system, we may benefit from a "key corridors" program whereby all rail corridors in key urban locations are considered public property and/or shared resources, and used on a user pay basis similar to toll highways.

But realistically, this may be a 2060 discussion, when the impacts and befefits feel a bit more urgent.

- Paul
 
^ It would be foolish to conceive a GTA bypass proposal without considering and applying the needs and lessons of other major cities eg Winnipeg Regina Saskatoon Calgary Edmonton, for whom the removal of downtown rail lines in favour of bypasses is equally a game changer..... and then add up the cost to the nation to implement all of these. The GTA won't see federal money for this idea without including all of these cities in the plan. Can Ontario go it alone on funding ?
Now add up all the extra miles that such a bypass would add to the routing, and the competitive impact of that added train-mileage and trip time, on CPKC, and the difficulty of establishing a method to equilibrate the "fairness" of this impact between CP and CN. And consider the impact on the valuation of CP's assets.
I really think this idea makes eminent sense, but is a "bridge too far" for our system. While I would not argue for the total expropriation and nationalisation of the rail system, we may benefit from a "key corridors" program whereby all rail corridors in key urban locations are considered public property and/or shared resources, and used on a user pay basis similar to toll highways.

But realistically, this may be a 2060 discussion, when the impacts and befefits feel a bit more urgent.

- Paul
The difference between doing it in Winnipeg Regina Saskatoon Calgary Edmonton, or just anywhere is that unlike those cities, Toronto and the GTA has a relatively large passenger/commuter rail footprint to would stand to benefit from this.

There has been the thought locally in Sudbury to get CP out of the downtown core so that rail transit could utilize the lines and develop the yard into housing and such. The ones proposing it were serious about it. I don't think I'll ever be able to see how it would ever be worth it. Maybe if we were approaching 10million people in the area.... but even my fantasies have their limits.

 

Announcement, soon. High speed option being "seriously" considered, procurement minister.

Duclos said Monday the government expects to name the successful bidder soon and to release more information about how the new rail corridor would work. His comments came after the Toronto Star reported the federal cabinet is considering high-speed rail for the corridor — trains that would travel faster than 200 km/h.
"Because the models that work best (for HFR) are quite close to a high-speed train … you can achieve quite fast trains even with high-frequency trains," Duclos said.

"The next step is to go to a high-speed train and that's an option which is being seriously considered."
 
^ It would be foolish to conceive a GTA bypass proposal without considering and applying the needs and lessons of other major cities eg Winnipeg Regina Saskatoon Calgary Edmonton, for whom the removal of downtown rail lines in favour of bypasses is equally a game changer..... and then add up the cost to the nation to implement all of these. The GTA won't see federal money for this idea without including all of these cities in the plan. Can Ontario go it alone on funding ?
Now add up all the extra miles that such a bypass would add to the routing, and the competitive impact of that added train-mileage and trip time, on CPKC, and the difficulty of establishing a method to equilibrate the "fairness" of this impact between CP and CN. And consider the impact on the valuation of CP's assets.
I really think this idea makes eminent sense, but is a "bridge too far" for our system. While I would not argue for the total expropriation and nationalisation of the rail system, we may benefit from a "key corridors" program whereby all rail corridors in key urban locations are considered public property and/or shared resources, and used on a user pay basis similar to toll highways.

But realistically, this may be a 2060 discussion, when the impacts and befefits feel a bit more urgent.

- Paul
All valid points.

Just a heads up. I continued this conversation in the Transit Fantasy Maps thread so as to not derail this thread any further. I provided maps and talking points.
 
Irrelevant. It will be killed by Poillievre.
Says who? HSR is in their party platform and most of the pricetag will presumably be absorbed by the private sector, as “Financing” is part of the procurement. Value-engineering and descoping to squeeze public exposure to costs? Quite possible. But scrapping it? I have yet to see PP criticizing the project and he usually doesn’t exactly hide his grievances…
 
Says who? HSR is in their party platform and most of the pricetag will presumably be absorbed by the private sector, as “Financing” is part of the procurement. Value-engineering and descoping to squeeze public exposure to costs? Quite possible. But scrapping it? I have yet to see PP criticizing the project and he usually doesn’t exactly hide his grievances…
ill point back to the committee study earlier this summer which basically said it will be great, but we need more transparency around the costs and schedules first before committing to support it
 
Says who? HSR is in their party platform and most of the pricetag will presumably be absorbed by the private sector, as “Financing” is part of the procurement. Value-engineering and descoping to squeeze public exposure to costs? Quite possible. But scrapping it? I have yet to see PP criticizing the project and he usually doesn’t exactly hide his grievances…
Platform is irrelevant and will be ignored by the centre. PP will kill it. I think you're off your rocker if you think this project goes ahead without substantial government funding, which won't be forthcoming from a Conservative government.
 
Says who? HSR is in their party platform and most of the pricetag will presumably be absorbed by the private sector, as “Financing” is part of the procurement. Value-engineering and descoping to squeeze public exposure to costs? Quite possible. But scrapping it? I have yet to see PP criticizing the project and he usually doesn’t exactly hide his grievances…
You do realize that member-adopted resolutions have basically zero influence on party policy right? If you want to know what PP thinks about it, you have to wait until the election platform at the earliest.

The reason he hasn't spent any time criticizing it is because the project has absolutely zero visibility in the public consciousness, so if he gave it any time, people wouldn't know what he was talking about.
 
You do realize that member-adopted resolutions have basically zero influence on party policy right? If you want to know what PP thinks about it, you have to wait until the election platform at the earliest.

The reason he hasn't spent any time criticizing it is because the project has absolutely zero visibility in the public consciousness, so if he gave it any time, people wouldn't know what he was talking about.

How many one on one conversations have you had with PP about HFR? I’m probably the only one on this form who has.
 
Platform is irrelevant and will be ignored by the centre. PP will kill it. I think you're off your rocker if you think this project goes ahead without substantial government funding, which won't be forthcoming from a Conservative government.
You do realize that member-adopted resolutions have basically zero influence on party policy right? If you want to know what PP thinks about it, you have to wait until the election platform at the earliest.

The reason he hasn't spent any time criticizing it is because the project has absolutely zero visibility in the public consciousness, so if he gave it any time, people wouldn't know what he was talking about.
Can we move these ever-same political conspiracies to a different thread and instead focus on facts and actual evidence here?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top