HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 2, 2018, 2:37 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy View Post
Where CBC says Fougere says the McDonald interchange is critical, did they mean Winnipeg? I don't agree that realigning Winnipeg street is worth $125 million. If you can re-hab the bridge for $10 mil, I would do that and use the money for other priorities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 2, 2018, 3:02 PM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
Where CBC says Fougere says the McDonald interchange is critical, did they mean Winnipeg? I don't agree that realigning Winnipeg street is worth $125 million. If you can re-hab the bridge for $10 mil, I would do that and use the money for other priorities.
I do believe they do. And while many think that rehabbing the bridge would be cheaper. Looking long term. 30 years from now when the North end that way is growing you don't want a "kink" in Winnipeg street. So realignment is best. Not to mention at the refinery police have to direct traffic for a shift change. That is NOT a great situation anyway you look at it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 2, 2018, 3:06 PM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
I disagree. They will move if they are fully compensated and they do not lose access to customers. It would probably be safer for them as well. They do not like colliding with semis either.
Also considering tighter federal regulations, OH&S, lawsuits, loss of revenue, downtime, better public image. I think there are many reasons the railways may be reasonable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 2, 2018, 3:49 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,185
Looked at this same topic regarding Winnipeg in general including the ring road there (Perimeter HWY). Simply put the cost of relocation and associated remediation it would need, ie grade separating in different places, it is actually cheaper to remediate the existing situation than relocate rail.

That said Winnipeg has gone 60+ years without fully addressing rail lines on the freeway system around the city including a couple in heavy commercial trucking zones. It took 20+ years of having a "temporary" construction detour including a very high profile death to get one grade separation happening. At this point I highly doubt there will be much more progress on more.

Hopefully Regina has better luck than here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 2, 2018, 4:24 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Looked at this same topic regarding Winnipeg in general including the ring road there (Perimeter HWY). Simply put the cost of relocation and associated remediation it would need, ie grade separating in different places, it is actually cheaper to remediate the existing situation than relocate rail.

That said Winnipeg has gone 60+ years without fully addressing rail lines on the freeway system around the city including a couple in heavy commercial trucking zones. It took 20+ years of having a "temporary" construction detour including a very high profile death to get one grade separation happening. At this point I highly doubt there will be much more progress on more.

Hopefully Regina has better luck than here.
This is not a full relocation, but rather a couple of branch lines in the NE corner of the City. Full relocation would cost in the billions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 2, 2018, 4:33 PM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
This is not a full relocation, but rather a couple of branch lines in the NE corner of the City. Full relocation would cost in the billions.
Yes it would. And Winnipeg for the most part has the Perimeter Highway grade separated for the main lines. The one that causes headache for most is at Headingly and one of the reasons for its proposed bypass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 2, 2018, 6:59 PM
Drofmab's Avatar
Drofmab Drofmab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
I disagree. They will move if they are fully compensated and they do not lose access to customers. It would probably be safer for them as well. They do not like colliding with semis either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy View Post
Also considering tighter federal regulations, OH&S, lawsuits, loss of revenue, downtime, better public image. I think there are many reasons the railways may be reasonable.
I agree that the railways will consider participating, but it will be on their terms... and with zero direct cost to them (and near-zero indirect cost). On those terms, they will participate.

If it comes to an outlay of money, or significant changes to schedules, or in any way altering their business, nope. Not going to involve themselves. Why would they? What's the upside for them? There's really no real OH&S or lawsuits related to that crossing, and downtime associated with collisions is minimal (and this single crossing is immaterial to them). Federal regulation won't focus on at-grade crossings, I'd bet. So, public image is the only driver...
__________________
@drofmab
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 3, 2018, 2:57 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drofmab View Post
I agree that the railways will consider participating, but it will be on their terms... and with zero direct cost to them (and near-zero indirect cost). On those terms, they will participate.

If it comes to an outlay of money, or significant changes to schedules, or in any way altering their business, nope. Not going to involve themselves. Why would they? What's the upside for them? There's really no real OH&S or lawsuits related to that crossing, and downtime associated with collisions is minimal (and this single crossing is immaterial to them). Federal regulation won't focus on at-grade crossings, I'd bet. So, public image is the only driver...
Exactly, railroads will not be losing money for ‘the greater good’. I am more familiar with the Winnipeg situation but it seems like by the time the railroads are paid for their inconvenience of moving, given new land, decontamination of old land, and proper grade separations are set up in their new location (the new railyards will have railroads crossing highways outside the city anyhow), it would be way more costly than grade separating the rail line between Winnipeg and McDonald streets.

I could see the value a little bit more if the rail yards were taking up prime land (i.e. the Forks in Winnipeg, any riverfront in Regina), but this rail line is in the middle of a suburban industrial zone that would need some rail service anyways.

Is this rail line the only point on ring road that makes it a non-freeway between Hwy 6 north and Lewan drive?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 3, 2018, 3:40 AM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
Exactly, railroads will not be losing money for ‘the greater good’. I am more familiar with the Winnipeg situation but it seems like by the time the railroads are paid for their inconvenience of moving, given new land, decontamination of old land, and proper grade separations are set up in their new location (the new railyards will have railroads crossing highways outside the city anyhow), it would be way more costly than grade separating the rail line between Winnipeg and McDonald streets.

I could see the value a little bit more if the rail yards were taking up prime land (i.e. the Forks in Winnipeg, any riverfront in Regina), but this rail line is in the middle of a suburban industrial zone that would need some rail service anyways.

Is this rail line the only point on ring road that makes it a non-freeway between Hwy 6 north and Lewan drive?
Yes they are the only at grade intersections. There are actually two Crossings in the vicinity of Winnipeg.

Also the other thing that Railways demand when their Rail lines are moved is compensation for any extra distance. They will require a mileage payment for every single car that has to travel extra distance. For example if there are 200 Cars using the track per day they will charge per km ×200×365 days per year x 30 years or more. This can really add up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 3, 2018, 12:58 PM
BrutallyDishonest2 BrutallyDishonest2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
Yes they are the only at grade intersections. There are actually two Crossings in the vicinity of Winnipeg.

Also the other thing that Railways demand when their Rail lines are moved is compensation for any extra distance. They will require a mileage payment for every single car that has to travel extra distance. For example if there are 200 Cars using the track per day they will charge per km ×200×365 days per year x 30 years or more. This can really add up.
Which is why the federal government needs to change the legislation giving the railroads so much power.

In other words, ain't nothing happening. Ever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 3, 2018, 4:18 PM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
Which is why the federal government needs to change the legislation giving the railroads so much power.

In other words, ain't nothing happening. Ever.
Well then Regina's only and must do option is go up and over CP CN and Winnipeg. As going under won't work unless they find a way to relocate tracks in that short distance.

Going to need to happen eventually and well frankly when RR hits 75,000 VPD happens it will be even more of a nightmare!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 3, 2018, 6:46 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,717
My initial proposal
So this is the hot mess that is the railroad in NW Regina




Here is my proposal to get the rail crossing off of Ring Road.



Since the above one goes through the refinery, just build a new line a little farther north?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 3, 2018, 8:05 PM
Drofmab's Avatar
Drofmab Drofmab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
Also the other thing that Railways demand when their Rail lines are moved is compensation for any extra distance. They will require a mileage payment for every single car that has to travel extra distance. For example if there are 200 Cars using the track per day they will charge per km ×200×365 days per year x 30 years or more. This can really add up.
If I owned something, and voluntarily agreed to help a government out, I'd ask for it to be revenue-neutral too. Asking to be reimbursed for extra distance is completely reasonable - if I were a shareholder, I'd expect them to demand this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
Which is why the federal government needs to change the legislation giving the railroads so much power.

In other words, ain't nothing happening. Ever.
Exactly - it ain't happening.

Even if the political will were there (it isn't - a battle with the railways would invariably have immediate & direct negative impacts on the resource & agricultural sectors), the court battles would drag on for decades. CN & CP have long & well-entrenched rights. For the feds to unilaterally change the legal rights the railways have, they'd need to be ready for a prolonged battle.

Short of nationalizing one or both railways, I don't see any politically palatable way for the feds to force the types of changes that people gripe about.
__________________
@drofmab
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2018, 9:37 PM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,454
For your viewing pleasure... would cost a lot and the headache for detours would suck. But likely one of the best options.


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 7:19 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,070
Thanks. Nicely done. I see you decided the Ring Road should flyover both the tracks and Winnipeg St.?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 9:14 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy View Post
Winnipeg for the most part has the Perimeter Highway grade separated for the main lines. The one that causes headache for most is at Headingly and one of the reasons for its proposed bypass.
Actually it is the CN main line that causes the most headaches. On the eastern side of town in meets the Perimeter HWY just off a major east-west cross hwy. The whole mess needs a full highway interchange built but its also very tight proximity to the Floodway (think ditch the height of a small office building). The east-west highway desperately needs twining but is also too close in proximity to the CN main line so that can't be done in place. Overall it is a real mess and likely into the $500 million plus range to properly address.

The CP main line heading west through Headingly though which you reference as another bottle neck was always less of an issue. I am not sure the reasoning why but CN has seemingly run more east/west traffic from Winnipeg for decades. The bigger issue with the Headingley route is the amount of commercial truck traffic on the four lane route that was until recently mostly undivided. It is also a relatively low speed route for what should be a high speed limited access route. The interchange on the Perimeter, including grade separation for the CP line, has been completed for about 5 years now. The eastern highway connection into Winnipeg is completed as well however no work has even been started on the western leg to bypass Headingly. The planned through route effectively dead ends onto the Perimeter currently but the interchange was built to handle eventual through traffic.

There is actually talk of building a similar interchange and by-pass at St Nobert for the main US bound highway out of Winnipeg but it is likely still on the 10+ year horizon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 10:00 PM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
Thanks. Nicely done. I see you decided the Ring Road should flyover both the tracks and Winnipeg St.?
That was the idea. Seeing that the distance to go over the tracks and under Winnipeg in a short distance would be nearly impossible and have a decent grade. This IMO would also make it easier to stage the NB lanes of Ring Road to handle traffic in both directions with greater volume while the SB lanes are being completed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:54 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.