urbanclient
Active Member
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, that's a famous case of a "nail house" in China, more examples here:
|
|
|
Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
Mihairokov
Senior Member
I saw one in Wuhan - they refused to sell their farmhouse to a new neighbourhood/tower development. Simply built four lane avenue on one side and eight towers on the other side. Enjoy your property.At the risk of pointing out the obvious, that's a famous case of a "nail house" in China, more examples here:
Holdout (real estate) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
StreetcarRider
Active Member
Enjoying the jokes but truthfully: who gets compensated for expropriations, and by how much, is governed by law, including dispute processes.
This article provides an overview of the expropriation, compensation and dispute processes, including exceptional rules just for Alto:
www.thewhig.com
This article provides an overview of the expropriation, compensation and dispute processes, including exceptional rules just for Alto:
How does Bill C-15 make it easier for the Canadian government to expropriate land?
Residents in the proposed routes for the Alto high-speed rail project are bracing for the government to begin expropriating their land.
www.thewhig.com
Last edited:
chrisw
Active Member
Martin Imbleau writes for the Star.
www.thestar.com
If Canada wants to lead, it has to catch up first. That means building Alto high-speed rail
Cutting travel time between Toronto and Montreal by 50 per cent could reshape daily life for many Canadians.
www.thestar.com
urbanclient
Active Member
I have more sympathy for someone who says $36,000 USD isn’t enough to rebuild their house, against a backdrop of high inflation every year for decades (Chinese case in the video), than someone who owns land that has appreciated faster than inflation, to become some of the most expensive rural land in the world (@micheal_can 's Sydenham case).
What are the chances a homeowner would lose money under Alto expropriation? My guess is slim to none. Future appreciation is not guaranteed.
Government policies helped you gain wealth, now it's time to pay a little back to society.
Mihairokov
Senior Member
From what I understood from my Wuhan example, the family I knew had a plot of farmland and farm house. Couple living there were offered an apartment/condo unit in one of the new towers on a 99-year lease, each of their children were offered at least one unit each, and additional other family members were offered units on a discount of something like 50%/75% off the "market value" of those to-be-built units. Most of the family now live in that tower neighbourhood along with all the other farmers whose lands were bought up, a lot of whom were nearing retirement anyway. When I was in Hangzhou I ran into a similar situation where a guy was able to turn his farmhouse into six different apartment units in a building which he then turned around and rented out. Leashes on landlords there, though, are much shorter than here...I think he spent his days collecting rent and clearing garbage from the neighbourhood.
Obviously this sort of case doesn't align for an infrastructure project like a highway or railway as there needs to be housing available elsewhere for them to be moved to. Our problem here is that we're not really coordinated on infrastructure projects in that way, so we're not simultaneously building government-led housing to move people who we're expropriating into, even temporarily. We can't exactly expropriate people in Tweed and then move them into a new tower we're building nearby because, surprise, there isn't one being built. The market doesn't dictate it needs to be built, you know?
Anyway, obviously there's a policy creep issue with C-15 and the government's ability to speed expropriation on people's properties and we need to be cautious in allowing the government to have further control over that without other policies enacted to support those being expropriated, but at this stage i'm going to be middle-aged before this HSR is even in operation and I don't really have the patience for a half-dozen people in Marmora to slow the process down. They have a right to, but those dozen voices will be slowing down hundreds of thousands. At some point the people who call for "nation-building projects" need to put their foot down and build the thing.
facepalming_brooklynite
Active Member
"Air Canada suspends 6 routes 'no longer economically feasible' amid jet fuel cost crisis"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/air-canada-jet-fuel-flights-9.7167904
Hey, G&M, PP and co: tell me again why we don't need high speed rail...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/air-canada-jet-fuel-flights-9.7167904
Hey, G&M, PP and co: tell me again why we don't need high speed rail...
micheal_can
Senior Member
The issue is not who will pay for it or not, it is the almost opaque way ALTO is handling this. They should have contacted people like the OFSC and OFATV for them to voice their concerns. The other thing is, because HSR requires arrow straight lines, the old Havelock sub will not be used in its entirety. So, they are creating unnecessary anxiety. It is almost like they do not want it built.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
This. The uncertainty (big error band from "which 10m of 100km" lore) is scaring many people. Carney has a mandate til 2029, but ALTO should help placate a few pitchfork and torches soon, so we can get shovels by 2029-ish.
On this topic sphere, ALTO is a big masterplanning feat that covers a lot of commonalties. See relevant ALTO post in GO Electrification from my other post in GO Electrification.
This is due to ALTO+GO shared catenary construction near Toronto.
just east of the creek
Senior Member
For anyone reading the Globe and Mail and not caught up in the article about the Arkell, there is an interesting opinion piece re alternatives to Alto, both build solutions and trains. This by Jason Shron. Jason Shron is president of the VIA Historical Association and author of TurboTrain: A Journey.
See https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...rain-from-50-years-ago-has-lessons-for-today/
See https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...rain-from-50-years-ago-has-lessons-for-today/
generalcanada
Senior Member
yea this article is weird. basically ignores the last 40 years of history
yes the travel times in the 70s were pretty good, but the freight companies have made it so its almost impossible to schedule trains on the existing corridor. requiring Via to wait behind CN's trains. It feels like the author is suggesting to nationalize our railroads instead
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Yes, that article is as if the author never heard any of Yves Desjardins-Siciliano's sales pitches for the HFR project (which was not a high speed project), but because the plan was upgraded to have HSR sections thinks that this is only about speed. This iteration of rail corridor investment was not born out of speed but rather VIA not being able to provide a reliable service for no fault of its own (mostly... the broken down trains and crazy slow rescue times are VIA).
rbt
Senior Member
For $100B (plus another $130B in a short-term loan) we probably could buy both CPKC and CN Rail, move all the Canadian railway corridor to a separate entity, then spin them off again. Charge fees to operate on the Canadian track using something like the airport model, where a non-profit manages most of the fixed [non-moving] capital and the operators have significant input.
That doesn't actually solve anything though as giant slow trains and short fast trains still don't mix well. A very large capital investment into tracks would also be required; much longer and more frequent sidings if nothing else.
Last edited:
StreetcarRider
Active Member
Thanks Andy Takagi and colleagues: "Why Union Station may not be a stop on Canada’s new high-speed rail line"
www.thestar.com
Gift-redeem
www.thestar.com
crs1026
Superstar
I very much doubt it would ever happen - but you raise a good point as a benchmark for just how big a venture Alto is. The combined market cap of CPKC and CN is about $200B.
We have a lot of debate here that ends with "Ottawa could never do that, it would harm shareholder interests, and the railways are just too big an investment to ever nationalise". It seems that building Alto is in the same fiscal ballbark as buying out one of CPKC or CN altogether. Perhaps doing so would indeed enable a high speed passenger line, while advancing other societal goals.
As I say, I don't see any reason to pursue it, but the theoretical argument may not be the fantasy we've been labelling it as.
- Paul