HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 3:02 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,764
Maybe when they relocate the rail line. Right now it's about 15' away. Not legal to create housing that close to a rail line. It makes the building difficult to redevelop. Pink popcorn syrup is a perfect use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 3:07 AM
Urban recluse Urban recluse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,499
Ah. Offices then. The dozens of people who would work in the converted building is preferable to the desolate atmosphere that currently exists around the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:00 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,291
Whatever happened to Jean Charest and his rail line relocation task force?

If the City can get CN to move that rail line, pigs will be flying and smurfs will be singing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:14 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Whatever happened to Jean Charest and his rail line relocation task force?

If the City can get CN to move that rail line, pigs will be flying and smurfs will be singing.
It hasn't been cancelled outright but the PCs are clearly reconsidering the whole undertaking.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...tudy-1.3621030

A good thing in my view... there are more serious fires burning in this province in need of the government's time and money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:34 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,291


Start and stop... Hopefully Pallister figures himself out and gets things rolling soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:35 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,764
^ like spending 1.5 billion dollars on underpasses and bridges to get over the rail lines?

why not proceed with the study so we can at least have an informed discussion about it? Maybe moving part of the rail infrastructure is the answer, maybe all, maybe none...but how do we know if we don't study it?....you have to plan for the future, you cant just spend money putting out fires.

What fires is this study precluding the government from putting out? rail relocation could be an incredible boon to the city, not a cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:37 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
^ like spending 1.5 billion dollars on underpasses and bridges to get over the rail lines?

why not proceed with the study so we can at least have an informed discussion about it? Maybe moving part of the rail infrastructure is the answer, maybe all, maybe none...but how do we know if we don't study it?....you have to plan for the future, you cant just spend money putting out fires.

What fires is this study precluding the government from putting out?
I want the study, like you pointed out, to make informed decisions. I'm not opposed to moving the rail lines, I just think there's a huge amount of buzz over something that has a very small chance of happening to the extent people are expecting. Now the study is on hold.. Jeez louise..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:45 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,764
the cost of dealing with the rail lines has ballooned exponentially...gone are the days of the $50m kenaston underpass...quadruple that number today....bridges are aging, the city is growing....these costs will only continue to escalate wildly...the time is now to look at other options before we waste all that money....they are spending as much money studying the Arlington bridge as they are the rail relocation.

it is only prudent and responsible to consider options....as I said, maybe there are small moves that can have a big impact....how do we know?

So much valuable infill land becomes available, from the forks outward....redevelopment of that land easily makes up for the costs.

cities need long term plans...the piece-meal way we have developed has caused many of our issues....I cant understand why anyone would be opposed to a long term plan....its a miniscule amount of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:51 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,291
Agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:52 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 790
Rail relocation was an NDP platform commitment - therefore, Pallister will not do it, good idea or not (which it is).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:54 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,989
A long term plan for what to do if and when the railway companies relinquish rights of way would make sense... for instance, the City really screwed up when the former CN line through River Heights was abandoned. It ended up being sold off piecemeal instead of using it more strategically.

However, the Charest task force was about using the government's influence to cause railways to relocate out of town. In my view that would be a waste of money. It's one thing to buy out a railway if there is strong demand for the land in question... but lands like the CP yards would become an expensive albatross for the city and province to deal with, not to mention the negative economic effects of potentially stranding industries without rail service.

When the time comes and the land's value increases, let the private sector take the lead in buying the land and redeveloping it. Remember, the railways themselves have taken a lead role in developing prime railway lands across Canada when the time and conditions are right... why should governments take the massive risk when the railways themselves won't do it right now? Buying and redeveloping some massive parcel of land like the CP yards to avoid the expense of a new overpass is like buying a whole new car just so you can avoid the cost of fixing the brakes on your current car.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 2:58 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,764
nevermind the fact that the rail lines have now become a moving oil and possibly natural gas pipeline in our country....to deal with it, municipalities including Winnipeg are adopting ridiculous setback rules that will make even more valuable land unavailable to infill growth throughout our city....how is that a reasonable response to a company deciding to pull steel cars filled with explosives through our city?...berms, crash walls and huge setbacks...all pushed on to the developer to pay for....its ludicrous..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 3:02 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
A long term plan for what to do if and when the railway companies relinquish rights of way would make sense... for instance, the City really screwed up when the former CN line through River Heights was abandoned. It ended up being sold off piecemeal instead of using it more strategically.

However, the Charest task force was about using the government's influence to cause railways to relocate out of town. In my view that would be a waste of money. It's one thing to buy out a railway if there is strong demand for the land in question... but lands like the CP yards would become an expensive albatross for the city and province to deal with, not to mention the negative economic effects of potentially stranding industries without rail service.

When the time comes and the land's value increases, let the private sector take the lead in buying the land and redeveloping it. Remember, the railways themselves have taken a lead role in developing prime railway lands across Canada when the time and conditions are right... why should governments take the massive risk when the railways themselves won't do it right now? Buying and redeveloping some massive parcel of land like the CP yards to avoid the expense of a new overpass is like buying a whole new car just so you can avoid the cost of fixing the brakes on your current car.
but how do you know what that impact is? which industries will be stranded without rail service?....how many people are really impacted?...nobody knows.

Maybe its not about moving the rail yard, maybe moving the main line is the answer...how do we know?

I fail to see how moving the rail yard becomes an albatross....the forks certainly isn't an albatross.

we are building far flung suburbs that are killing the city....there appears to be lots of demand for that land....why would there not be demand for old rail land? infill and densification is the only answer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #294  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 3:17 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,764
to me the albatross is all the underpasses and bridges we are needing to find money for....without any gain in quality of life and prosperity for the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #295  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 3:26 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
^ like spending 1.5 billion dollars on underpasses and bridges to get over the rail lines?

why not proceed with the study so we can at least have an informed discussion about it? Maybe moving part of the rail infrastructure is the answer
I used to be strongly in the rail relocation did not make sense as it was too costly but am starting to think a little different.

The main issue seems to be southwest Winnipeg. Which got me thinking. The CP east-west line is almost fully grade separated already so leave that and the yard that divides the north end alone.

CN has two huge yards/shops on the east part of town. Relocating those is where the costs go through the roof and make grade separation for rail a better choice. But what if those yards stayed in place and the right of way between Raleigh and Gateway was used to then take the CN traffic from those yards north of the Perimeter and over to CentrePort before hooking back into the main line west of the city.

You still have huge costs for grade separations as you have to address to line essentially from Narin to the Perimeter and then every major road that crosses the Perimeter. But the question becomes are we moving rail because of safety concerns, aka oil tankers derailing in a highly populated area, or is it being done to save single vehicle commuters five minutes.

The other hard fact of this is southwest Winnipeg prepared to have all the major road funding going to the north part of Winnipeg and the neighbouring RMs for the next 10+ years to make this happen? This means no grade separation of St Marys and Bishop, no widening of Bishop, no new grade separations on the south Perimeter, etc. But rail will be relocated.

End of the day I am not sure as a collective whole Winnipeg is ready for that tough decision and to accept what it truly would mean to relocate rail. One of the other huge barriers will be getting the buy-in from the RM of East St Paul to move the dangerous and noisy main line from southwest Winnipeg to essentially bisect the Pritchard Farm area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #296  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 3:32 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,291
That's just it. I as a resident of EK would lose it if they directed all rail traffic up Gateway. Just like the people in ESP will lose it if the main rail corridor runs through their sleepy neighbourhoods. Etc. It's such a complex thing..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #297  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 3:36 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 790
Agreed it only makes sense to study it, and do a proper cost-benefit analysis. When you start seeing figures like $300 million thrown around for Arlington Bridge then it brings it into focus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #298  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 5:40 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
End of the day I am not sure as a collective whole Winnipeg is ready for that tough decision and to accept what it truly would mean to relocate rail.
I think this is the key piece here. For the relocation opponents it's a lot easier to look at the ~$300m needed for the one small project in their neighbourhood, and ignore allllll the other projects like that around the city that likely won't affect them. But we're at that point where we HAVE to start looking about the city as a whole, and as TV mentioned have a better plan for the whole city; not segments of it at a time.

It's easy to say "oh it's just the Arlington bridge" or "just the Waverley underpass" but the reality is there are a lot of 'justs' right now on rail crossings alone, let alone all the other projects that need to happen.

The St. James Bridge (and Kenaston) is a massive project that MUST happen soon due to safety reasons that everyone seems to keep forgetting about, and has nothing to do with rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #299  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 5:58 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,989
^ As has been pointed out numerous times, relocation will entail building a whole new set of grade separations on highways that will also be very pricy. There's no free lunch here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #300  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2016, 6:24 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,093
^^ Exactly. You could fully grade separate Bishop from Lag to Pembina and both St Annes and St Marys on the Perimeter **OR** you can relocate the CN main line to north of the city. The costs are roughly the same. Which do you pick?
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 > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:25 AM.

     

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