What’s this?

I mean, it’s very like Ireland other than only one level of government there (national) controls transit planning and funding - this is absolutely not a compliment

The problem with this forum in general but transportation threads specifically is they attempt to bring rational analysis to services and projects which simply can’t be analyzed rationally, because they all have a political foundation. Take reinstatement of Northlander. The Tories never...

This is just posting for attention at this point.

A development app or something else where some of the drawings would be posted is what I had in mind

That sounds like the north end exit to the Northbound platform at Davisville. Not saying it’s a reason to do it a second time, just saying there’s a precedent.

If anything, hasn’t Pearson been seen as a cash cow for the Feds?

Route 88, already diverted via Davisville thanks to the mess on Moore Avenue at Mud Creek, is now split east of Bayview. Until July 14, instead of both branches converging westbound at Millwood/Sutherland: the A branch will continue along Southvale/Moore from Millwood where it ordinarily turns...

If something of that sort was contemplated by Parliament as a current activity, it would be found within an unrepealed statute such as the CN Commercialization Act (S.C. 1995, c. 24). For example, Parliament wanted CN to be unambiguously subject to the Official Languages Act, and a direction to...

I would argue that if we are looking to “where could Canada have taken another path” it would have been when CN was privatized as a combined service operating company and infrastructure manager. Instead the track was left with CN as their asset, with all the consequences that flow from that. It...

Having squinted at the source PDF I see your point Dan. Maybe the difficulty here is that WT is only being asked for approval to conduct works for an initial phase, with ramp reinstatement / replacement in a later one. I think it would have been helpful for that to have been explicitly set out...

okay… what are we elevating? The ramp? The development? Can’t elevate the DVP itself.

If the ramp is there, the land can’t be flood proofed. What do you suggest be done?

As was pointed out up thread, since VIA does not print its own money, the issue is more that their funder does not want costs to increase. Were the Quebec Assembly to open their wallet, who know what might be afforded.

Since it seems to be a prerequisite to Unilever lands and to the Ontario Line, seems to be harder for govts to duck funding this own…

Is this the same ramp slated to be removed under the Eastern / Broadview flood protection scheme?

Did VIA have to put in an application, or are they somehow exempt due to being on rail lands or being federally owned?

I have often wondered about redirecting these trains to terminate in Quebec City, but aside from the mostly discontinued rail alignments in that region, such as the St Raymond Subdivision which was turned over to a biking trail causing a circuitous route (and thus reducing the saving of time or...

I mean, the Port of Montreal surely has something to do with the fact that service from the east routes over the top of the City?

I wonder if CN would prefer the revived Northlander station to be on the Newmarket Sub where Simcoe 169 turns north, after the switch west of the VIA station, so as not to hold up the Bala Sub mainline. Per OpenRailwayMap, it looks like one point the track switch was south of the VIA station...