HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2020, 5:51 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is online now
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Agriculture, professional services, public administration, transportation, health care, manufacturing, retail

But realistically a second large city would probably result in a Saskatchewan-like situation where instead of one larger city we'd have simply have two mid-sized ones. I have to admit I kind of like having all of our urban eggs in one basket for the most part... Winnipeg is able to sustain more big-city features and amenities than three cities of, say, 250,000, or two cities of 350,000 would.
What, historically, would have caused that to happen? In Saskatchewan, I imagine it was that Saskatoon was much better positioned than Regina to act as a regional commercial and warehousing centre for a huge agricultural district, so businesses located there. Regina was already the administrative centre, capital and the centre of another agricultural region. Moose Jaw was considered their equal for many years but there ultimately wasn't enough economic activity to sustain it as an alternative business location.

In Manitoba, with Winnipeg's unmatched railway connections, and its role as the primary distribution and warehousing centre for the prairies as a whole, as well as for most of southern Manitoba, it would rarely have made commercial sense for a major business to locate in Brandon, other than to serve local needs.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2020, 7:43 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ It isn't that hard to imagine a scenario where a second major city evolved in Manitoba, at least partly at Winnipeg's expense. As you know, so many of the big early decisions were made by powerful business, railway, resource and government interests. One can easily conjure up a scenario where a powerful and well-connected "Sir Jebbediah Brandon" with lots of land in western Manitoba convinces the GTR to run its main line through town. Or convinces the Dominion government to establish a large and important something-or-other in town. Or establishes a large and dominant mercantile firm that positions Brandon as the hub of the prairies. Etcetera.

And if you think that's implausible, then recall that Selkirk was originally poised to be the Manitoba metropolis until certain Winnipeg interests persuaded the CPR to run through town even though Selkirk was in many was an objectively better site for a city... and the rest is history.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2020, 8:22 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
What, historically, would have caused that to happen?
Regina became the city it is today largely because the CPR decided to build a station there, and Saskatoon, because the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway (later to become part of the CNR) built a station there. Both railways used Winnipeg as a gateway to the west, so there was no need for another city major in Manitoba.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 7:02 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
You know, if there was a train between Regina and Winnipeg, that might work well...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2020, 8:45 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,677
There's no good reason for there not to be daily rail service (at least) between Winnipeg and Brandon. There are lots of stupid, trifling reasons--as with everything in Manitoba--but no good reason.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
What economically would sustain a second large city?
The city.

It's probably a function of Canada being pretty new and underpopulated that even makes this question seem reasonable. If we peeled back Europe 800 years, would there be anything to economically sustain, say, Munich? Probably not, but the city (and many others like it) exists anyway and has provided its own economic sustenance.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 12:16 PM
SaskScraper's Avatar
SaskScraper SaskScraper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Saskatoon/London
Posts: 2,359
Via rail already runs The Canadian line from Winnipeg through Rivers MB (20 kms north of Brandon). Just need to adjust frequency of the train for any pent up demand waiting to use the run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Manitoba is more centralized than NS. Sydney is larger than Brandon, and is a clear regional centre of a very distinctive (culturally and geographically) region.

Cape Breton Island is an economic basket case, but it probably would be even worse off without a city to anchor it.
wiki shows Sydney Nova Scotia population to be just under 30,000. if you add near by town of Glace Bay Nova Scotia with 19,000 it's still less than Brandon CA with 58,000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Agriculture, professional services, public administration, transportation, health care, manufacturing, retail

But realistically a second large city would probably result in a Saskatchewan-like situation where instead of one larger city we'd have simply have two mid-sized ones. I have to admit I kind of like having all of our urban eggs in one basket for the most part... Winnipeg is able to sustain more big-city features and amenities than three cities of, say, 250,000, or two cities of 350,000 would.
There would definitely be certain economies-of-scale having one larger city like Winnipeg instead of two cities, each half the size, like in Saskatchewan.

Winnipeg's airport airlines have a pax 3½ times larger than Regina and 3 times larger than Saskatoon's airport. This means bigger aircraft with a bit higher frequency of flights to generally more destinations. In retail 99% of all consumers have same stores in each city but Winnipeg is more likely to acquire stores like Ikea in the market with larger population in one area. For singular attractions like zoos or aquariums, Winnipeg's Assiniboine Zoo is twice as large as Forestry Farm Zoo in Saskatoon.

Once you get over a quarter million people in a city you tend to get similar range & size of facilities such as Art galleries and Museums, you just get more of them in larger city. Winnipeg did strike gold by getting $100 million of Federal funding for Museum of Human Rights last decade.

For performing arts theatres, Centennial Concert Hall in Winnipeg, Conexus Arts Centre in Regina and TCUplace in Saskatoon are all similar sized venues and get similar range of shows. Winnipeg does have Royal Winnipeg Ballet company of which there is no equivalent in Saskatchewan, or any other city in Canada the size of the Manitoba capital for that matter.

In comparison of facilities like sports arenas/stadiums, Regina and Saskatoon have same sized arenas & stadiums put together as Winnipeg, with the exception of Shaw Park baseball which has 7,500 seats in Winnipeg and Cairns Field in Saskatoon has 5,000, the Saskatchewan cities just have more smaller secondary facilities, there's no equivalent of Saskatchewan's Brandt Centre or Griffiths Stadium in comparison in Winnipeg.

One thing that each of Regina and Saskatoon seem to have over the 'Peg is road/expressway infrastructure that rivals Manitoba's CMA. Winnipeg has had Perimeter highway for half a century but Regina's equivalent is free flowing with no traffic lights, plus Regina's inner city ring road covers another 3/4 of the central part of city, again free flowing. Saskatoon's Circle Drive is free flowing for 90% of it's inner city loop and the city is planning it's second free flow orbit with an outer ring next decade.

Last edited by SaskScraper; Sep 29, 2020 at 1:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 1:26 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,724
Based on my own experiences, I believe that the peg punches way above its weight in cultural amenities relative to the size of the city. Quebec City too.

Whereas London's (ON) belt is on the ground, with its pants puddled around its ankles.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 1:42 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,201
Honestly, not a crazy idea to have a Winnipeg-Portage-Brandon line, with the three biggest towns/cities in Manitoba on one line. But even if it could be built by laying track along existing rail corridors, it's going to cost several hundred million. A dedicated corridor could be ~$2B.

It's a question of what Manitoba could do with that kind of money. But if such a line was built, Portage could substantially develop as a Winnipeg exurb.

I honestly wish we could find ways to fund lines like this. My other fantasy line is Regina-Moose Jaw-Saskatoon. National rail ideas are useless. Regional rail lines with 2-3 car MUs running hourly, connecting the major cities, would do a lot for these provinces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 2:08 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Kidding aside, there simply cannot be much demand for common carrier service between Winnipeg-Portage la Prairie-Brandon when the only such service left is the Brandon Air Shuttle which goes 3x a day in a 15-passenger van.

I mean, the infrastructure is there for a simple route that follows the existing CN line between Winnipeg and Portage, and then transfers to the CP line for Portage-Brandon. All you need is the railway equipment and the staff. But would there be many users? Seems unlikely if the route can't even sustain a motorcoach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 2:12 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,201
I think there's a bit of "If you build it, they will come."

A conventional line at 100 mph, would be a 40 min trip from Portage to downtown Winnipeg. It would attract development and commuters. Brandon is more debatable. But 1.5 hrs by rail would change how people view the trip. And if you had a single line, DMUs don't cost much to run. So maybe, you send every second one to Brandon?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 2:19 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
I think there's a bit of "If you build it, they will come."

A conventional line at 100 mph, would be a 40 min trip from Portage to downtown Winnipeg. It would attract development and commuters. Brandon is more debatable.
I agree that there is an element of 'build it and they will come' with regard to advanced rail infrastructure.

But at the same time, as a Winnipegger I question a) the desirability of Portage as a place to live as it's basically a small declining town (don't tell my wife I said that, she's from Portage), and b) the overall desirability from a Winnipeg standpoint of encouraging exurban residential development in Portage. I mean it's one thing for Paris to have commuters taking the TGV in every day from Tours, but Winnipeg is not exactly as congested as Paris.

I mean, it would be nice to have a little more connectivity with Brandon seeing that train travel is not a practical option to get there right now, but IMO a realistic and sustainable goal to aim for would be to start conventional (i.e. F40s and HEP type equipment) train service 1x daily between Winnipeg and Brandon, eventually expanding it to 2x daily service to enable day trips. When the service last ran in the late 1980s, it took 3 hours from point to point with a few stops in between... that is not that far off from driving given that it is about 2.5 hours downtown to downtown. If it can be done on a similar schedule, it could potentially work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 2:59 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,201
I think we have to keep in mind that current shuttle services aren't wholly reflective of demand. A Winnipeg-Portage-Brandon line would be capturing and inducing commuter demand on the Winnipeg-Portage portion and medium haul travel demand on the Winnipeg-Brandon portion. The business case has to rely on moving over some of the driving traffic.

As for how it's built, I don't even think using old equipment makes sense. It would inflate operating costs to a point of a false portrayal. 3-4 two car DEMUs or BEMUs could operate this very cheaply. The main cost will always be the capital of laying the track.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 3:05 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ I think there is great flexibility on the equipment, it doesn't matter specifically which type of equipment you use. I was getting at the idea that existing equipment would keep the up-front costs down but obviously something more modern would be preferable. Although it would have to be something pretty durable as there are many level crossings on this route and collisions are surprisingly frequent.

As for laying track, non-starter. I'm positive the math will melt down once you factor the capital costs of new tracks (beyond sidings) into the mix. It would have to be existing track or bust.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 3:41 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
As for laying track, non-starter. I'm positive the math will melt down once you factor the capital costs of new tracks (beyond sidings) into the mix. It would have to be existing track or bust.
Just depends on what we think government should spend on. Personally, I would have zero issues with federal dollars supporting the construction of a corridor like this. But it's understandably a hard sell in Winnipeg where most voters would probably want that money going towards transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 3:51 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Just depends on what we think government should spend on. Personally, I would have zero issues with federal dollars supporting the construction of a corridor like this. But it's understandably a hard sell in Winnipeg where most voters would probably want that money going towards transit.
I like the idea of rail in theory, but when you are forced to make decisions between spending a finite pot of transportation infrastructure dollars on that vs. rural and urban highways or urban transit, it becomes a no-brainer.

It would be a hard sell to say the least to suggest spending into the ten figures for a new rail corridor when there are still stop lights on the Trans Canada Highway, for example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 4:09 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,201
I would caution on assuming cost. Laying track in an existing corridor could be cheap. Buying a handful of trainsets isn't all that expensive. If the freightcos co-operated and existing corridor was suitable, this entire thing could theoretically be done for a quarter billion. Conventional rail doesn't require grade separation. But any grade separation built would benefit the freight cos and local traffic too (especially in the Winnipeg area).

I wish the idea (along with a few other corridors) was at least studied, so we had more concrete data. We seem to assume in Canada that no rail service is viable unless it can support tens of thousands per day. But this one, may turn out defensible at a few thousand riders per day and what it does for those communities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 10:29 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,677
I always submit the feasibility of these ideas to the Poland test. Would Poland, with a GDP barely a third of Canada's, do it? The answer is invariably yes, and you could replace Poland with an even poorer country--the Ukraine, or the Winnipeger's favourite, Moldova--without the benefit of EU investment, and you'd find they still would.

That's why I say the reasons not to are trifling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
I think there's a bit of "If you build it, they will come."

A conventional line at 100 mph, would be a 40 min trip from Portage to downtown Winnipeg. It would attract development and commuters. Brandon is more debatable. But 1.5 hrs by rail would change how people view the trip. And if you had a single line, DMUs don't cost much to run. So maybe, you send every second one to Brandon?
This is exactly what I was thinking. A day-trip train from Brandon to Winnipeg, leaving at 9am and going back at 9pm, and a more regular commuter-scheduled train from Portage.

I'd even add stops in the southwest Winnipeg suburbs, one that could connect to their busway.

It's a good idea. Exurban development in Portage that takes a train into the city is preferable to exurban development that drives. Besides the benefits of keeping cars out of the city, and reducing driving in general, Manitoba highways are deadly in winter. People shouldn't be driving as much as they are.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 10:47 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
Besides the benefits of keeping cars out of the city, and reducing driving in general, Manitoba highways are deadly in winter. People shouldn't be driving as much as they are.
One of the most baffling things about our underinvestment in rail (urban transit and Intercity) is that it is happening in the context of our large distances traveled, higher gas prices (vs. the US), and most importantly our insanely cold and wintery climate which makes the roads treacherous for 4-6 months per year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 6:29 AM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,677
In Manitoba I don't know if it's possible to be more than one degree of separation from someone who's died highway driving in winter. Doesn't stop people from doing it though.


Anyway, another sound candidate for a rail line, besides the Saskatchewan line you mentioned, would be in the Okanogan. There's already an abandoned line from Vernon to Kelowna that could also stop near the university and airport. Bridging the lake would be tough, but then it could run all the way to Penticton and turn the Okanogan into a solidly mid-sized metro. Development is linear there, why not serve it with linear transportation? Outside of the Lower Mainland (which, honestly, should have had trains running to Tsawwassen and Chilliwack all along, but don't get me started) it's BC's strongest case for intercity rail.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 12:25 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
I always submit the feasibility of these ideas to the Poland test. Would Poland, with a GDP barely a third of Canada's, do it? The answer is invariably yes, and you could replace Poland with an even poorer country--the Ukraine, or the Winnipeger's favourite, Moldova--without the benefit of EU investment, and you'd find they still would.

That's why I say the reasons not to are trifling.
Poland wouldn't have high speed rail or anything close to it on a run like Winnipeg-Brandon. There would be a few conventional trains a day of reasonably high standard, but not much more than that.

For context, the only thing close to true high speed rail lines in Poland is the Warsaw-Krakow-Katowice route, which is roughly on par with Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa in Canada. There are no HSR lines radiating out from, say, Bialystok to Augustow.

For what it's worth, population densities and shorter densities make passenger rail transportation a more viable option throughout most of Europe. I'm not saying it can't happen in Western Canada, but it's going to be a lot harder to make it work outside of a couple key corridors like Calgary-Edmonton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.