[ericmacm]

The usual. "We cant afford this right now" "the plan is too expensive" "get out of the way and let the private sector do it" etc.

Instead of outright oposition, All of the above can easily be sold as, "we can do the project better".

The project is already a P3 with four private companies and two state-owned/crown corporations (three if you include Alto). Contracts are already signed, and funding for the full development phase has been secured at this time. There is very little politically to be gained and a lot to be risked from standing in opposition to the project right now.

I have no problem with protestors, people protest on every major project but it will ultimately all die down once the corridor has been refined and most realize that their properties will not be affected.

 

[Thaboss]

There is very little politically to be gained and a lot to be risked from standing in opposition to the project right now.

Agreed. I'm not saying that active oposition will occur right now especially now that the cons are on the backfoot.

I do suspect more oposition will bubble up after an alignment has been decided and costs are better understood. So roughly in three years ...which incidentally lines up with the next federal elections (I'm assuming the libs get their majority here and choose to not go early)

 

[kEiThZ]

Seriously hoping for the northern alignment. Sick of the NIMBYs. And let every Kingston resident remember how their neighbours screwed them.

 

[lenaitch]

An unfortunate by-product of the consultation strategy is that it may invite some knee jerk opposition that opposition parties can be predicted to leverage, even it they truly support HSR.

The swath of land actually needed for HSR is trivial, but starting publicly with a 10-km wide study zone draws in a whole lot of people who may never actually be impacted.

Ottawa is moving pretty wisely on Alto, certainly compared to California where the route selection exercise (and subsequent litigation) has been a dysfunctional and costly nightmare. We really need to beat the bushes for objections and opposition now during the consultation phase, so that no one can later challenge the project on allegations of failure to consult or consider alternatives. If that means that some rush to the barricades now, it's still the better way through this phase of the project.

I'm no political expert but strategically I would expect that the government would simply retable the "objectionabe" sections as a take or leave piece of legislation, and call the opposition parties' bluff. The closer we get to election time, the harder it will be for the opposition to stand in the way. Ideologically Quebeckers may not want closer ties, but pragmatically - they need the jobs.

- Paul

The little slice of social media I see certainly has been active; mostly negative. All the way from 'a toy for rich urbanites and no benefit to the locals', to a corridor that will cut eastern Ontario in half (their ancestors must have been apoplectic when the 401 and Seaway were built). VIA just needs faster and better service in the existing corridor (gee, why didn't VIA think of that?)

If nothin else, a northern alignment will directly impact fewer communities.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Perhaps Kingston is still angry about not being selected as the capital. Time to get over it. That said, the situation might be better if VIA, or ALTO, or the feds - someone - would provide some clarity and assurance about what plans are for the legacy routes post-ALTO. We were told that the service would be re-focused on meeting the needs of residents of Kingston and the other lakeshore communities, but there has been a strange silence about that since the HSR plans emerged. I think they could buy some social license for ALTO if they could credibly assure folks that they won't be thrown under and onto the bus in the future.

 

[micheal_can]

An uncomfortable question, but, have we even looked at the price tag to build an entire new alignment to get CN off the Kingston Sub? I know it is ludicrous, but, to placate all the small towns, this should be shown as an option. A very poor and expensive one, but one.

 

[crs1026]

That said, the situation might be better if VIA, or ALTO, or the feds - someone - would provide some clarity and assurance about what plans are for the legacy routes post-ALTO. We were told that the service would be re-focused on meeting the needs of residents of Kingston and the other lakeshore communities, but there has been a strange silence about that since the HSR plans emerged. I think they could by some social license for ALTO if they could credibly assure folks that they won't be thrown under and onto the bus in the future.

This, times one thousand.

How will a service that has been declared to be incompatible with CN freight operations suddenly become viable and doable when Alto is completed?

(Hint: It will be downgraded through the same thousand paper cuts as other lines in the past)

- Paul

 

[StreetcarRider]

Let's get controversial: perhaps people in Kingston see no need for high-speed service because Kingston's current VIA service to each of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal is already <3 hrs and includes a lot of trains (I just picked a random Wednesday in March and VIA has 14 daily departures to Toronto, eight to Ottawa and six to Montreal).

If ALTO replaced all 28 daily VIA trains then Kingston would be screwed rail-wise. But if some VIA service remains, even if trip times lengthen a bit and the number of trains is reduced, it would still be a useful way to get around from Kingston.

Anyway, agreed that it would be useful to know the plan for VIA in this area in an ALTO era.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think they could by some social license for ALTO if they could credibly assure folks that they won't be thrown under and onto the bus in the future.

The NIMBYs don't care at all. Most of them would readily lump in Kingston residents with the big city crowd.

I would love to see Alto pick the Northern Route and directly blame the NIMBYs. Let Kingstonites get mad.

This, times one thousand.

How will a service that has been declared to be incompatible with CN freight operations suddenly become viable and doable when Alto is completed?

(Hint: It will be downgraded through the same thousand paper cuts as other lines in the past)

- Paul

And?

Honestly, I'm tired of the interests of major metro dwellers being held hostage to the interests of a few hundred thousand on the Lakeshore.

And especially so from the federal perspective where rail is supposed to be a strategic investment enabling the national economy.

 

[Urban Sky]

these guys protesting are only doing it because they cant get answers whose properties are affected. Which answers should not be given out at this point, which is understandable, they just have to wait

You have it backwards: The currently preferred route has to be published as soon as possible, so that local input can be obtained to minimize local impacts. The routing aspects which have the highest impact locally will make the smallest impact on anyone using the train. It will be impossible to avoid expropriations, but the least the unlucky ones are owed is the opportunity to provide alternative routing suggestions and that the final routing represents the objectively optimal routing (when balancing all objectives) rather than just an arbitrary stoke of a pen by someone sitting at a desk in an office building hundreds of kilometers away. Which is why I find a timeline where we go from a ten-kilometers-wide corridor to a final route in a matter of months offensive to my sense of justice. You can only build strong partnerships if you treat local folks as citizens who have valid concerns which need to be properly taken into account. It's impossible to avoid causing any damage, but the damage needs to be minimized everywhere, not just near our own (metropolitan) homes...

I have zero faith in QB politicians...anything that pits them against the feds is fair game for them..

Friendly reminder that it was political (and economic) leaders in Quebec which brought QBEC and TRIV onto the HFR map, whereas those in Southwestern Ontario told VIA off for having their own project while they were laying all their baskets into the Wynne government's insincere HSR election stunt...

 

[generalcanada]

You have it backwards: The currently preferred route has to be published as soon as possible, so that local input can be obtained to minimize local impacts. The routing aspects which have the highest impact locally will make the smallest impact on anyone using the train.

How do you get a route if you dont even know what "routing aspects which have highest impacts" are?
I thought that was the point of this whole thing, what should they look out for, what community impacts they should look at.

It will be impossible to avoid expropriations, but the least the unlucky ones are owed is the opportunity to provide alternative routing suggestions and that the final routing represents the objectively optimal routing (when balancing all objectives) rather than just an arbitrary stoke of a pen by someone sitting at a desk in an office building hundreds of kilometers away.

define suggestions vs demands. we have seen time and time again community consultation when planned that way goes off the rails quickly. Riverside, Flemingdon park, Yonge north.

Which is why I find a timeline where we go from a ten-kilometers-wide corridor to a final route in a matter of months offensive to my sense of justice. You can only build strong partnerships if you treat local folks as citizens who have valid concerns which need to be properly taken into account. It's impossible to avoid causing any damage, but the damage needs to be minimized everywhere, not just near our own (metropolitan) homes...

would you rather them go to a final route without consultation? Im sure internal designers already have a few routes selected and they will pick one based on community input based on what the community unknowingly suggests.

 

[Urban Sky]

How do you get a route if you dont even know what "routing aspects which have highest impacts" are?

By publishing multiple routing options, not just a 10 km wide band and then requesting feedback of anyone concerned.

I thought that was the point of this whole thing, what should they look out for, what community impacts they should look at.

Nobody can realistically imagine the impact from a 10 km wide band over a map and that lack of detail is the fertile ground on which the current fearmongering feasts.

define suggestions vs demands. we have seen time and time again community consultation when planned that way goes off the rails quickly. Riverside, Flemingdon park, Yonge north.

Just because Canada is a stranger to an efficient and effective consultation and litigation process doesn’t mean that it‘s impossible to arrive at a route which minimizes local opposition by giving local communities the feeling that their concerns are heard and used to find a fair compromise which minimizes the impact on them. Many demands will not make any difference to the project‘s supporters (and its future users) other than additional planning efforts.

would you rather them go to a final route without consultation?

The release of different plausible routing options is the start point of a meaningful consultation process and we haven‘t seen those yet…

Im sure internal designers already have a few routes selected and they will pick one based on community input based on what the community unknowingly suggests.

This is exactly the ignorance and undemocratic secrecy which scares me about ALTO: informed decisions can only be made if the options are known. This decision must be made in public, with all options on the table and with the opportunity to challenge every aspect until we arrive at a final route which is the result of hundreds of well-justified routing and design decisions…

 

[crs1026]

This is exactly the ignorance and undemocratic secrecy which scares me about ALTO: informed decisions can only be made if the options are known. This decision must be made in public, with all options on the table and with the opportunity to challenge every aspect until we arrive at a final route which is the result of hundreds of well-justified routing and design decisions…

The reaction of local pols is not NIMBYism so much as it's valid and rational WIIFMism.... Alto brings no benefit to local communities along the line. They get the disruption, the lasting intrusion to their environment, the redrawing of land. Somebody else gets the benefit.

The point being - It isn't meant to benefit those communities directly, it's simply a matter of "taking one for the team".

Alto will benefit us all insofar as it solves transport between major urban centers, creates economic benefit and perhaps carbon benefit.... but it's a "virtual airport" for t-O-M-Q, not a local transportation amenity. Selling an intangible gain for a tangible cost is difficult in our politics. The technocrats will claim intellectual superiority and try to deliver an equation that proves the value proposition, but the average voter (who don't think in technical terms) will empathise with the harmed parties.

The communications strategy of the day for our politics seems to be, say as little as possible, suppress the facts, and mumble.

Time will tell whether the backlash exceeds the support, but yeah, it's time to do better at putting meat on the table.

That may mean being more granular in the route proposals, it may also mean offering something that actually benefits the communities along the line... ie firm commitment to the legacy service, and a business plan to improve same.

- Paul

 

[Mihairokov]

Thank you for your thoughts, Deputy Mayor of Tweed.

If ALTO replaced all 28 daily VIA trains then Kingston would be screwed rail-wise.

This would be exceptionally dumb to do, though; HSR is not meant as a replacement for local and regional trains. They should work in tandem to service both larger and smaller centres in between. Like I said previously, if we're aiming to have ALTO be a replacement service for VIA then it'll fail for everyone from Day 1. It's not meant to supplant VIA service.

 

[generalcanada]

By publishing multiple routing options, not just a 10 km wide band and then requesting feedback of anyone concerned.

Nobody can realistically imagine the impact from a 10 km wide band over a map and that lack of detail is the fertile ground on which the current fearmongering feasts.

Just because Canada is a stranger to an efficient and effective consultation and litigation process doesn’t mean that it‘s impossible to arrive at a route which minimizes local opposition by giving local communities the feeling that their concerns are heard and used to find a fair compromise which minimizes the impact on them. Many demands will not make any difference to the project‘s supporters (and its future users) other than additional planning efforts.

The release of different plausible routing options is the start point of a meaningful consultation process and we haven‘t seen those yet…

This is exactly the ignorance and undemocratic secrecy which scares me about ALTO: informed decisions can only be made if the options are known. This decision must be made in public, with all options on the table and with the opportunity to challenge every aspect until we arrive at a final route which is the result of hundreds of well-justified routing and design decisions…

imgur.com/a/future-relief-line-north-rapid-transit-corridors-Mpf0YXD

how is this different than what were doing now. all theyre asking is what impacts should they be looking for, what should they focus on. I wasnt at these consultations, but i dont think a simple vote system would be what we want.

to be clear i dont think its a good idea that we should be challenging experts on what the best options are.

to quote someone from the ontario line consultation "if we say we demand the leslieville ontario line section tunnelled, will you do it".

The experts opinion even hidden in secrety should not be judged