ProjectEnd
Superstar
To @innsertnamehere's above point, here's a small news article about the return of containers to the Great Lakes from 2020: https://ajot.com/news/container-cargo-on-the-great-lakes-for-the-first-time-in-over-a-decade
Just a note re: flagging admins for threads (we should put something in a sticky at the top of the forum where it will be ignored) that for thread title/database updates in the 905, please @Paclo. For thread title/database updates in civilized regions, you can still @me.It's Gensler, for the thread title (@interchange42 / @AlvinofDiaspar / @Art Tsai).
But beyond that, I'm sorry, you want to try and develop Hamilton into a Great Lakes, intermodal, container facility?? Are you *high*? Also, "on-site rail" (something that's absolutely required for a container port) is a bit of an ambitious way to describe the existing mess of CPKC spurs and stubs that connect Stelco to the Grimsby Sub. That sub, you'll remember, is also projected to take a huge increase in GO traffic with once the Confederation and Grimsby eastward expansions come online.
Best o' luck, folks...
...I mean, is this something that is needed? And will it be enough create a sustainable economy here?
Someone above indicated the one in Baltimore is not doing so well or something...so I'd hate to see ghost warehouses replacing ghost steel mills. And Hamilton would then be no better off.
It's no guarantee, but have little doubt that they will coordinate to ensure a rail connection is guaranteed. I can't recall where I read it, but I do remember Slate boasting specifically about the strong rail and road access of the site. Not to mention Stelco was obviously using rail here for a long time. There are a bunch of spurs, sidings, and service tracks all around the site today, and while they would mostly have to go in the interim, it would likely be harder to skirt around retaining/improving that rail connection than to not have one, especially given the site context. I would imagine CPKC and CN would actually be interested in ensuring they get to service the site, too, if there is to be an intermodal facility of the kind described.I'm certainly optimistic, but there are a number of lingering questions not answered in the presser on the previous page. Most importantly: are Slate working with HPA to connect into the CPKC (it still sounds dumb) and CN mainlines close to here. Long Beach is on a different scale, but part of the thing that made that port so successful in the container trade was the construction of the Alameda Corridor linking it to the BNSF and UP lines heading out across America. That project was 32km so this wouldn't need to be nearly as comprehensive, but if Slate wants to be taken seriously in its apparent goal of growing the Great Lakes intermodal trade, it's an intrinsic part.
Yep, there's further discussion of this with myself and @innsertnamehere on the previous page.It's no guarantee, but have little doubt that they will coordinate to ensure a rail connection is guaranteed. I can't recall where I read it, but I do remember Slate boasting specifically about the strong rail and road access of the site. Not to mention Stelco was obviously using rail here for a long time. There are a bunch of spurs, sidings, and service tracks all around the site today, and while they would mostly have to go in the interim, it would likely be harder to skirt around retaining/improving that rail connection than to not have one, especially given the site context. I would imagine CPKC and CN would actually be interested in ensuring they get to service the site, too, if there is to be an intermodal facility of the kind described.
View attachment 478074
(I think you realize there is rail here, but I'm including a picture because it shows how much exists to serve other existing customers and the proximity of those tracks- Slate can't afford to neglect the rail component in this case).
I also am considering the scope of information that has been released. In some ways, suggesting a container port is a goal which inherintly necessitates a rail connection, but outright stating it (and its nature) would be jumping the gun and possibly compromise some perceived competitive advantage, especially if these things aren't totally final. In short, if they are going to make a press release announcing anything, it logically would only be some visuals and the generalized site objectives (a port, industrial space, etc), not necessarily the nuts and bolts underneath.
Slate has also been fairly adamant about working with the city, local entities, etc, so I don't see things moving forward without adequate accommodations planned with HOPA/HPA (I've assumed these were the same thing, lol).
I do think this project, alongside the electrification of Dofasco, presents a good opportunity to rationalize the rail network in the area, perhaps even involving Metrolinx if it concerns the CN Grimsby sub and CPKC Hamilton sub. It depends how far one wants to take this idea, but depending on the volumes here it may be worth entertaining a serious overhaul of freight/rail movement in the area. I would like to see something to this effect, if not just to improve how/how many trains enter Hamilton. More CPKC/CN trains certainly would throw a wrench into GO, and with goals to ramp up service in the long term alongside potentially growing freight volumes, it might be worth hashing things out sooner rather than later to extract public benefit that way.
My fantasy pie-in-the-sky idea is to reinstate the CN Beach sub, because alongside creating a wholly seperate access point for the freights I think GO would make great use of it as well, but that is for another time.
Randle Reef is also there. If you're looking for brisk freighter trade, a Federal "Area of Concern" isn't something I'd want in close proximity...What's the point in this waterfront park? This is a 45+ minute walk from some of the nearest existing neighbourhoods. Why not put the park on the west side and have the port on the north? Sherman and Birch could have been extended north as parallel one way avenues, perfect for a transit loop. It would also allow for the possibility of a connected waterfront from Bayfront Park, through Pier 8, down Burlington St. and ending at Steelport. I don't think there is anywhere else in Lake Ontario with 1.5km of uninterrupted sunset facing waterfront. Such a missed opportunity for beautiful evening views. You can even see on that map the existing rail infrastructure is mostly in the northeast part of this site, so how would it not make more sense to locate a port on the north? Boats would be travelling a shorter distance too. This whole thing seems backwards.
File Number | PSR-23-027 |
Application Type | Preliminary Site Plan Review |
Address | 386 Wilcox Street |
File Year | 2023 |
Description | To construct 3 industrial buildings with a total area of 130,074.01m2. The proposal includes 236 truck loading doors, 232 trailer parking spaces, 1,000 parking spaces and 7 barrier free spaces. |
My bad didn't see that comment. I wasn't aware of the different owners of the mess of tracks, so your comments regarding HPA/HOPA make more sense now, too.Yep, there's further discussion of this with myself and @innsertnamehere on the previous page.
While I agree it isn't a super great spot, I think it's a miracle we are getting any kind of public space here at all. This is new, publically-accessible waterfront land in a city where the vast majority of the waterfront has been delegated to heavy industry for over a century. While we could perhaps argue the space should be on the east/west side of the parcel, it would then either be next to Dofasco in the east (yuck) or near existing ports & Randle reef in the west. All that, and it'd still be just as inaccessible.What's the point in this waterfront park? This is a 45+ minute walk from some of the nearest existing neighbourhoods. Why not put the park on the west side and have the port on the north? Sherman and Birch could have been extended north as parallel one way avenues, perfect for a transit loop. It would also allow for the possibility of a connected waterfront from Bayfront Park, through Pier 8, down Burlington St. and ending at Steelport. I don't think there is anywhere else in Lake Ontario with 1.5km of uninterrupted sunset facing waterfront. Such a missed opportunity for beautiful evening views. You can even see on that map the existing rail infrastructure is mostly in the northeast part of this site, so how would it not make more sense to locate a port on the north? Boats would be travelling a shorter distance too. This whole thing seems backwards.
Nothing wrong with deep water harbours with steel mills adjacent to them. Busy steel mills are healthy economies, even better if they are here and not in Liaoning Province in China ( as an example). I’m not sure how a container business could prosper in the Great Lakes with the railways as competition? Price? (I am assuming transshipment in Montreal). But if there is a market, then Hamilton would be a good port....I mean, is this something that is needed? And will it be enough create a sustainable economy here?
Someone above indicated the one in Baltimore is not doing so well or something...so I'd hate to see ghost warehouses replacing ghost steel mills. And Hamilton would then be no better off.