Kapyong Barracks Discussion

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by scryer

Again I feel like this proposal, minus all of the politicking and controversies, would be praised by us if it was located anywhere other than Kenaston.

Probably not. Chief Peguis west extension is basically the same thing. However they're actually building a couple interchanges there.

They could keep Kenaston 4 lanes and put interchanges and limit access further would be my proposal. But I don't work for the City, so there's that.

It seems like the City has given up on Kenaston being a freeway so they can 'focus' on William Clement instead. That's part of the beltway, Kenaston is not. Now the debate comes in whether the beltway is a good plan or go with urbanist dream and not build any roads.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Jammon

So, someone please educate me as to what the "widening" actually means for Kenaston? Is the plan to buy out the existing homeowners along that stretch and demolish the homes?

My understanding is the plan to widen Kenaston, north of Grant, is basically to strip most of the development on the western edge as it is primarily government owned between the Youth Centre (prison) and military housing that was outside the land transfer to treaty settlement. The disputed area is a little north of Grant through the CN main line which significant development on the east side and what is likely to become an urban reserve on the west side.

[KellyEdwards]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

if the city realy needs that land why dont they just sign a 99 yr lease for it

You can get a lease or an easement for reserve lands but it requires a majority-present community vote from the First Nations to grant it.

Not only that, but considering that most urban reserve businesses gross $10M a year, it's highly unlikely that the lease paid by the City of Winnipeg will outweigh the potential 15.5 acres of economic potential for the urban reserve.

The proposition isn't there. The reserves will be giving up so much for so little in return.

Peguis' Cannabis investment on Portage Ave near Arlington will create $12M in revenue while apparent projections for Long Plain's Petro gas station is now in the $20M range. Yet these are small and compact acreages that offset government transfers and pay for housing or social programs in these reserves.

So, while the benefits for Winnipeggers are there, taxpayer's will need to make up the 99-year difference.

Assuming that sales remain constant for Peguis and Long Plains' two investments, that's $3.56 billion in economic revenue over 99 years. It's highly unlikely that Winnipeg will ever pay a lease anywhere close to that.

And that's only incorporating 2 of 7 of the reserves.

By those numbers alone, it would be cheaper to make Kenaston's express lanes a tunnel and keep above-ground traffic as local traffic.

In all honesty, that $3.56-billion-dollars is better to be made through private business ventures made by the bands rather than taxpayer's picking up that tab to offset the economic losses of the reserves.

Too bad the alternative 'option 5' route wasn't even considered. I think the City of Winnipeg was too confident and painted itself in a corner. Because now, Option 5 would've been the cheapest and best way to make the widening a reality.

While the empty land (which remained empty after the rail line was discontinued and removed) could've easily been legally expropriated, it was instead sold to investors and developed. Now, that the land is developed, Option 5 is off the table.




Winnipeg just likes to face-palm so hard sometimes.

Source: Google Maps and City of Winnipeg Planning Dept.
https://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/...es/Option5.pdf

[bomberjet]

Yup. That's typical. No thought or foresight. Such as the city selling off land in east Winnipeg for the beltway. Now they're hooped. Not that anyone cares.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Yup. That's typical. No thought or foresight. Such as the city selling off land in east Winnipeg for the beltway. Now they're hooped. Not that anyone cares.

I've never understood why the City did not keep the land that would have made a perfect through-way through Transcona, for the CPT expansion. I recall years ago, some residents complaining about the fact that it cut through land north of Regent that was designated "Tall Grass Prairie." Maybe it had something to do with the decision to preserve that piece of land.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by KellyEdwards

Too bad the alternative 'option 5' route wasn't even considered. I think the City of Winnipeg was too confident and painted itself in a corner. Because now, Option 5 would've been the cheapest and best way to make the widening a reality.

While the empty land (which remained empty after the rail line was discontinued and removed) could've easily been legally expropriated, it was instead sold to investors and developed. Now, that the land is developed, Option 5 is off the table.

The problem with that option is that River Heights residents opposed it. They didn't want another Kenaston carving up the neighbourhood. I agree, from a planning perspective, it made the most sense.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I've never understood why the City did not keep the land that would have made a perfect through-way through Transcona, for the CPT expansion. I recall years ago, some residents complaining about the fact that it cut through land north of Regent that was designated "Tall Grass Prairie." Maybe it had something to do with the decision to preserve that piece of land.

That's the exact reason. Edward Shreyer Parkway was to run right through there and connect to Plessis south of Camiel Sys. I don't think resident complaints had to do with it though.

[KellyEdwards]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

The problem with that option is that River Heights residents opposed it. They didn't want another Kenaston carving up the neighbourhood. I agree, from a planning perspective, it made the most sense.

You're 100% right because I lived near that proposed extension.

It's a shame that 2,000 residents can speak on behalf of the 60,000 or so daily commuters who use Kenaston.

Route 90 is 10,000 more commuters busier than most of Main Street, Notre Dame, Osborne, St. Mary's, Bishop Grandin, Waverley, etc.

The only two roads that have equal or more volume that rival Route 90 are Portage Avenue and Pembina Highway. Yet when it comes to an intersection on Portage Avenue, all Winnipeggers have a say and vote.

I think the same should've been applied for Route 90 to expropriate for Option 5. Instead of 2,000 Winnipeggers deciding the outcome, a vote should've been held.

[joshlemer]

Originally Posted by KellyEdwards

You can get a lease or an easement for reserve lands but it requires a majority-present community vote from the First Nations to grant it.

Not only that, but considering that most urban reserve businesses gross $10M a year, it's highly unlikely that the lease paid by the City of Winnipeg will outweigh the potential 15.5 acres of economic potential for the urban reserve.

The proposition isn't there. The reserves will be giving up so much for so little in return.

Peguis' Cannabis investment on Portage Ave near Arlington will create $12M in revenue while apparent projections for Long Plain's Petro gas station is now in the $20M range. Yet these are small and compact acreages that offset government transfers and pay for housing or social programs in these reserves.

So, while the benefits for Winnipeggers are there, taxpayer's will need to make up the 99-year difference.

Assuming that sales remain constant for Peguis and Long Plains' two investments, that's $3.56 billion in economic revenue over 99 years. It's highly unlikely that Winnipeg will ever pay a lease anywhere close to that.

And that's only incorporating 2 of 7 of the reserves.

By those numbers alone, it would be cheaper to make Kenaston's express lanes a tunnel and keep above-ground traffic as local traffic.

In all honesty, that $3.56-billion-dollars is better to be made through private business ventures made by the bands rather than taxpayer's picking up that tab to offset the economic losses of the reserves.

Too bad the alternative 'option 5' route wasn't even considered. I think the City of Winnipeg was too confident and painted itself in a corner. Because now, Option 5 would've been the cheapest and best way to make the widening a reality.

While the empty land (which remained empty after the rail line was discontinued and removed) could've easily been legally expropriated, it was instead sold to investors and developed. Now, that the land is developed, Option 5 is off the table.




Winnipeg just likes to face-palm so hard sometimes.

Source: Google Maps and City of Winnipeg Planning Dept.
https://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/...es/Option5.pdf

Wow! Even if it weren't used to replace Kennaston, this land could have easily been used as a right-of-way for a BRT Line! Shame!

[esquire]

^ Compared to its usual pace, the City sure didn't waste any time carving up the former rail right of way and selling it off.

That said, it looks like the ROW would have been a bit narrow for a two-way Kenaston replacement... it probably would have been more than enough for BRT, though.

[joshlemer]

Man what the heck, when fate hands you a beaufully in tact right of way, you don't go selling it off!

[plrh]

I thought the old idea was to make the rail ROW the northbound and the current Kenaston as the southbound. Which would have destroyed property values in those houses situated in the middle. Not that anyone else should care.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by plrh

I thought the old idea was to make the rail ROW the northbound and the current Kenaston as the southbound. Which would have destroyed property values in those houses situated in the middle. Not that anyone else should care.

The idea was bandied about for a while but I don't think anyone really liked it. It would have been terrible for the area.

At the end of the day I'm confident that a deal will get done. Considering how much land is tied up in Kapyong, the owners will have more than enough to sell or lease to the city on favourable terms.

[plrh]

I like your optimism. After all, it's the road that brings the customers that help business's profit.

[bomberjet]

Regarding the tall grass prairie. Yes it was public outcry. The City then sold off all the land from regent southward to Plessis.

Then during the most recent developments, they allowed the Ravelston corridor from ESP east to near Plessis be used for residences.

They can use Bradley to get besides the tall grass. Then down regent to Plessis and south through the underpass. there is a plan to use the golf course lands as the roadway until getting to Fermor. From there, who knows.

[Gm0ney]

Originally Posted by KellyEdwards

You can get a lease or an easement for reserve lands but it requires a majority-present community vote from the First Nations to grant it.

Not only that, but considering that most urban reserve businesses gross $10M a year, it's highly unlikely that the lease paid by the City of Winnipeg will outweigh the potential 15.5 acres of economic potential for the urban reserve.

What's the 15.5 acres exactly? To widen Kenaston, the City would require maybe an 8 m strip about 1 km long on the edge of the urban reserve to widen Kenaston and add an extra lane each way (plus some room for medians, turning lanes, etc.). That's not quite 2 acres in total - out of, what, 160 acres?

Unless there's a plan to build a very long and narrow gas bar, this eats up a few feet of planters and shrubbery along the sidewalk. And the benefits of a better-flowing Kenaston will help the development far beyond these wildly speculative millions you're claiming will be lost...

[rrskylar]

Continuing in the right thread:

https://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum...05856&page=213

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

The problem with that option is that River Heights residents opposed it. They didn't want another Kenaston carving up the neighbourhood. I agree, from a planning perspective, it made the most sense.

At least they built those big box stores to replace the land on the old rail line. It would ahve been great to have constructed a bike trail/walkway from RRC to Taylor Ave, but Winnipeg will Winnipeg.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by esquire

That said, it looks like the ROW would have been a bit narrow for a two-way Kenaston replacement... it probably would have been more than enough for BRT, though.

It would have been one way northbound. Kenaston would have become one way southbound. At one point it was also a potential rapid transit corridor, from Polo Park to Taylor.

[KellyEdwards]

Originally Posted by Gm0ney

What's the 15.5 acres exactly? To widen Kenaston, the City would require maybe an 8 m strip about 1 km long on the edge of the urban reserve to widen Kenaston and add an extra lane each way (plus some room for medians, turning lanes, etc.). That's not quite 2 acres in total - out of, what, 160 acres?

Unless there's a plan to build a very long and narrow gas bar, this eats up a few feet of planters and shrubbery along the sidewalk. And the benefits of a better-flowing Kenaston will help the development far beyond these wildly speculative millions you're claiming will be lost...

It's much more than just a two-lane expansion. The City of Winnipeg is acquiring additional land to eventually make Kenaston an 8-lane with dual turning lanes at almost every intersection.

This included with a slightly wider pedestrian walk way, acceleration ramps and wider lanes for semi-trucks means that the land required is actually pretty significant.

The orange area is the land that would need to be acquired. The orange circle relates to the next photo:



The Kenaston widening is so large it actually plows through existing buildings on Kapyong.


Including acquisition of land for Taylor and Grant as well as a couple of off-ramp lanes makes the total area an estimated 15.5 acres. Those are all rough numbers, but as you can see that adds up to a lot.

Kenaston isn't as simple as adding a lane in each direction.

Photos: Google Maps and City of Winnipeg: https://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/...es/Option4.pdf