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).
Can we at least agree that restoring an inactive and dismantled line on a former, but still existing, ROW would not and should not receive the same scrutiny as building an entirely new ROW through an environmentally sensitive area like the lakes between Kingston and Smiths Falls?
There are people with opposing interests who might well take VIA to court if it bypassed that. #trieditwithpipelines
Despite Paul Langan's desperate attempts of strirring up NIMBY protests, I have yet to see one newspaper article which voices local resistance. Instead, even he published a
guest post from Marc Lemieux which was supportive of HFR, especially as a way to support small cities and communities which "are seeing very little economic growth and, in some instances, an actual decrease in population largely due to the lack of opportunities for employment for young people, resulting in a migration to large, urban areas."
The Peterboro line is new construction, let's face facts.
Correct, the line is indeed new construction. The ROW, however, isn't.
-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
I don't see why this wouldn't be significantly cheaper than building something new from scratch.
- Previous bridges have been converted to bike trails.
Converted as in tracks removed and replaced through asphalt? Cannot be reverted back by removing asphalt and relaying tracks (provided the structure is sound)?
- 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.
It is in the nature of any reconstruction project that some structures need to be replaced and additional earthwork is required. I don't see why this wouldn't be significantly cheaper than any greenfield development.
- 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)
Have a look at this
presentation prepared by Omnitrax which shows very detailled pictures of the Gillam-Churchill line with the washouts. I unfortunately can't find the more detailed engineering report with an Annex which didn't only include these pictures, but also details regarding the required repairs and earthwork to restore service: I have seen several hundred of pages of such reports documenting and discussing the current state of all parts of the Havelock Subdivision (i.e. in operation and abandoned).
- 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).
You can't "future-proof" an alignment for HSR (i.e. speeds in excess of 125 mph), which is obviously not suited for such speeds.
- 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.
I don't see why this wouldn't be significantly cheaper than blasting an entirely new passage through the Canadian shield.
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.
While I just argued that you don't need to upgrade an existing line to HSR standards, a "prudent engineer" would certainly recommend this for a greenfield alignment, where the alignment can already be built with such speeds in mind, which will, however, cause additional costs.
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.
Yes, if you assume that building a greenfield alignment (close to HSR standard) is not significantly more expensive than adding tracks to an existing ROW, you would be indeed right, though I would like to see some evidence to support that theory.
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.
Yes, you will need a grade separation to cross the Belleville Sub near Agincourt, vs. two grade separations if you take the Kingston Sub (one to cross the Kingston Sub somewhere between Liverpool Junction and wherever you leave the Kingston Sub and one to cross the Winchester Sub in/near Smiths Falls. Assuming you measured correctly, you will indeed have to upgrade 94 miles of a lightly used freight line, rebuild 98 miles of a previously existant ROW and add 15 miles of second track vs. 180 miles of adding 1-2 additional tracks to already 2-3 existing track (good luck reclaiming the third track which has already been built and is property of CN) and building the greenfield Gananoque cutoff to HSR-ready specs...
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.
Yes, indeed, there won't be any longer 2 trains departing Kingston 6 (53@13:39 and 65@13:45), 16 (#43@9:13 and #61@9:29), 18 (69@19:02 and 647@19:20) or 22 minutes (67@17:16 and 55@17:38) between each other or departing Toronto 17 (54@17:40 and 668@17:57) or 25 (66@15:15 and 46@15:40 or 646@16:35 and 68@17:00) from each other. Nevertheless, there will be a service which will serve Kingston more effectively than the current schedule and even though you can't believe it based on the information you have received, their mayor
has been fully convinced by the information he has received.
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.
I can't believe you have never heard of the cuts of the federal government which took place on January 15, 1990
and also severely affected the Corridor (far beyond abandoning Montreal-Trois-Rivieres-Quebec and Toronto-Havelock). It was not CN which stole these frequencies, it was Mulroney!
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
And I would like to see the figures on which you base your claims, as I find some of them extremely counter-intuitive...
Aluminum can absolutely be repaired, even if cracked. The repair, however, is trickier than that done to steel, and frequently involves additional processes.
Of course everything can be repaired, even if you have to replace every single part of a car. The question is whether it can be done cheaper (let alone: at better value-for-money) than a replacement...
