Not that anyone cares, but the key historical learning points I would offer are
- CN understood by the mid to late 1950s that freight railroading was incompatible with the growth of downtown Toronto, and by that early date they foresaw the depletion of industry and freight business in central Toronto. Pretty foresighted, if you ask me
- The idea of a commuter network was raised immediately, but the main concern was the potential for this to require subsidy. The whole concept of subsidy was taboo until Premiers Frost and Davis realized that commuter rail was a helluva lot cheaper than expanding the highway network to accommodate the growing volume of auto commuters trying to reach downtown Toronto. Building GO was much cheaper than adding lanes of highway.
- One has to appreciate, the Gardiner and DVP were only being built at the time the bypass was planned - and while there was a network of expressways planned, the huge cost of that investment weighed heavily on the pols who had to raise the money.. Into the mid 1960's, TTC was boasting about turning a profit at the farebox.....the financing cost of the Line 2 subway is what erased the idea that transit in Toronto could run in the black. it took many years to get past the idea that a shortfall at the fare box was not acceptable.
- The ability to remove the roundhouses and coach yards from downtown Toronto, and reclaim that land for development, was appreciated in the 1970s but wasn't really credible until VIA Rail Canada happened and Ottawa funded the shift of rail pax facilities to a new facility in the early 1980's. Until then, CN was not really operating on a commercial basis and the appetite for monetising those facilities did not emerge. CP with its Real Estate division was more profit oriented, but the pre VIA and early VIA funding formula compensated them for all that. CP was well compensated for continuing its (unneeded) passenger roundhouse and coachyard on some very valuable real estate, until VIA moved off the property..
- CN had two alternative bypass routes planned and put forward for public commentary. There was profound public debate on the impacts, The scope of grade separation was the most contentious point. The number of specific residences and community impacts was relatively small by present standards (24 residences on Pape Ave alone today....versus a similar number for the whole Dunbarton routing......) but this was hotly debated. In the end, the more central routing was selected in preference to a more northerly crossing.
- There was ample warning to north-end municipalities to not develop too close to the right of way (it was all farmland back then)....which the municipalities subsequently disregarded, with various levels of small- and large-C corruption in municipal zoning and urban planning decisions.
And the rest is history. If I did an article, this would be the synopsis.
- Paul