micheal_can
Senior Member
Could CN's interest in this project be what is needed to bring the line back into service?
|
|
|
General railway discussions
- Thread starter Urban Sky
- Start date
lenaitch
Senior Member
Perhaps, depending on the foundation of their interest. They are taking a stake in the railway, not a particular part of it. They could see value in the part of the line servicing the Port Hawkesbury/Canso area and the Sydney sub is simply part of the package. The railway or, in this case the subdivision, has to have an economic foundation. I read somewhere that the CBCNS said it needed 10000 carloads a year to be profitable and the latest figure cited at that time was 1500.
I just saw this post. Perhaps not a listed Dangerous Good but creosote smoke is noxious if not toxic. It is considered a carcinogen but I don't know at what rate of exposure. One town I lived in had an open air creosote 'plant' (where they soak the ties) and it stunk to high heaven.
Metroscapes
Active Member
Honda announced re-tooling their Alliston plant for EVs today. I imagine that bodes well for traffic on CP's MacTier sub.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Will the raw materials be shipped there for construction into batteries?
Metroscapes
Active Member
CN's yard continues to be an aggravator for a housing project immediately north of West Harbour GO.
crs1026
Senior Member
Pretty easy to understand CN's objection. This piece of land sits adjacent to the switching lead for the CN yard. It's the place where locomotives are most likely to be sawing back and forth, throttle up, throttle down, smoke up, and where noise from slack action will be most prevalent as the switching moves pull and then push cars into the yard. In all of Hamilton, it's the one place where the railway is most intrusive on its neighbours. So you redevelop, add a bunch of new residences..... and within months the residents will have formed a residents' association and be starting proceedings to force CN to limit its switching, citing the adverse impacts on their lives. And sad-face stories in the media from residents who say the trains are ruining their sleep, harming their mental health, etc.... and that will be true, because it will be an unpleasant environment to live in.
I'm with CN on this one...... CN was there first. If the City wants to reclaim this area for redevelopment, it's on the City to relocate CN's yard at taxpayer expense.
- Paul
PS - A lot of the idling engine noise and exhaust in this location will be from GO, not CN, and even moreso when service is extended eastwards. I am sure CN will want that to be noted, GO needs to step up and claim its side of the "problem".
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I get your take, Paul, to a point.
But there were residents here before. This was not a brownfield site, it was already housing.
If this were conversion from Industrial/Employment, I'm with ya, but its already residential, just vacant, because it was vacated for redevelopment.
****
We're not privy to what CN's full position is here, but the fact that Andrea Horvath came out with a very strong public rebuke of them, when she is not known for inflammatory/immoderate takes casts a rather dubious light on CN to me.
urbancog
Active Member
Noise can be mitigated by locating only the bathroom and kitchen windows on the noise generating side of apartments:
micheal_can
Senior Member
Funny thing is, for some people, it would be a selling feature.
crs1026
Senior Member
The previous residents may not have had the leverage or organization to mount much of a protest. I suspect the site had been residential for long enough that those who remained had acclimatised. I’m not sure that we should “grandfather” a zoning decision that might not meet today’s standards.. The political climate has changed and anyone moving in today - and at today’s housing prices - would likely be much more assertive in complaining about CN’s presence, and in a way that did not give any ground to CN’s seniority or commercial interests.
The issue for CN is likely that any serious restriction of their use of the trackwork in that location would make the entire yard useless.
There is certainly precedent for moving a railway yard out of the centre of the city - both Toronto and Vancouver have done so - but that would require a much bigger planning effort, and the railway would have the opportunity reap the benefit of the underlying land value. I can appreciate CN’s concern that this development would leave CN holding the bag - putting a lot of leverage on CN to move but not enabling the transition in a manner that allows CN to monetise their departure.
IIRC Past articles had suggested that CN wanted “full disclosure” to prospective buyers, and some sort of covenant in title that restricted rights to object to CN’s ptesence, so there was no erosion of CN’s operating practices.
The proper solution may well be to move the yard altogether, but that would require much more skin in the game from Ms Horvath and others….. nobody wants to be next door to a rail yard, so some other residents in the Hamilton area will need to be won over.
- Paul
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
An enduring restrictive covenant attached to the title would be the only way to go; that way it binds any future owner. Any other type of disclosures, zoning restrictions, etc. are too prone to litigation and subject to future gaming.
Allandale25
Senior Member
micheal_can
Senior Member
Maybe the province is finally funding the train to Banff.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
That's what I was thinking. Considering they don't believe in climate change I'm surprised that they even bother to keep the park pristine at all. Why not just dig it up and extract the oil? (Sarcasm).
But Parks Canada runs the show so if it was that it would be a federal announcement.
Probably launching a study to link Calgary and Edmonton with rail?
micheal_can
Senior Member
Another study?
So, a nothingburger of an announcement?