Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Some of those station locations seem so ridiculous, almost nothing around them.

I know that this is the common consensus around here on the second leg of the southwest corridor, but people forget two things:

1. More people work in the Chevier and Buffalo industrial parks than along the equivalent parallel stretch along Pembina.

2. While the parker lands are empty for now, they provide ample opportunity for transit-orientated development in the future.

With these two things in mind, among many others considerations, it becomes easier to understand why the city went with the relatively more cost-effective option to plow rapid transit through greenfield as opposed to the way more expensive option of ripping up highly-used Pembina or expropriating properties near/along it.

[dmacc]

Now that the city has been held in contempt of court maybe this will light a bit of a fire under the city to work with the developer on this land.

[bomberjet]

The City finally has balls and stands up to a developer. A crooked developer who has caused numerous issues with the City before. They purposely built something not approved in their McPhillips development. And now the City is held in contempt over a hearing. So they're going to hold a 'hearing' and come out with the same conclusion in the end.

There's only so much that can be done at this point. Hydro owns the large corridor separating the development from BRT station. The development is fairly high density nearest the station, with some issues. Work out it and move on already.

[dmacc]

The developer may be crooked and need to be held accountable but a judge will never side with you if you react just as corruptly in response.

Gem equities has been shady on projects but this project has shown no sign of shady intent... yet. The city by law needs to act in good faith and only punish a developer on a specific project after an issue arises. What ever the issue that happened on McPhilips needed to be addressed and corrected there. You can't save that mistake and punish them on a future project. A judge will never side with you if that's case.

The city should have taken Gem to court over the McPhillips issue and forced them to fix what ever they did wrong. If the city didn't do that then they only prove themselves to be the inept.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

With these two things in mind, among many others considerations, it becomes easier to understand why the city went with the relatively more cost-effective option to plow rapid transit through greenfield as opposed to the way more expensive option of ripping up highly-used Pembina or expropriating properties near/along it.

Huh?? The alternative was to go alongside the CN rail corridor, not to rip up Pembina or expropriate properties. There's space in the corridor, and it's being used by the RT anyway south of Plaza. The report on routing options recommended the Parker alignment because of the TOD opportunities and the fact that it would cross fewer streets. That's about it.

The Parker alignment requires 2 additional grade separations (tunnel at Jubilee, overpass north of Plaza) so I'd be very surprised if it was any cheaper than the rail corridor option.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by dmacc

The developer may be crooked and need to be held accountable but a judge will never side with you if you react just as corruptly in response.

Gem equities has been shady on projects but this project has shown no sign of shady intent... yet. The city by law needs to act in good faith and only punish a developer on a specific project after an issue arises. What ever the issue that happened on McPhilips needed to be addressed and corrected there. You can't save that mistake and punish them on a future project. A judge will never side with you if that's case.

The city should have taken Gem to court over the McPhillips issue and forced them to fix what ever they did wrong. If the city didn't do that then they only prove themselves to be the inept.

I get it. They told GEM to abide by the City zoning. They have a difference of opinion and the City has the final decision. You can only act in good faith for so long. And I do believe the City took GEM to court over the lack of playground at McPhillips. GEM paid a significant fine. But I believe they were still in a net gain position with the fine.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Huh?? The alternative was to go alongside the CN rail corridor, not to rip up Pembina or expropriate properties. There's space in the corridor, and it's being used by the RT anyway south of Plaza. The report on routing options recommended the Parker alignment because of the TOD opportunities and the fact that it would cross fewer streets. That's about it.

The Parker alignment requires 2 additional grade separations (tunnel at Jubilee, overpass north of Plaza) so I'd be very surprised if it was any cheaper than the rail corridor option.

The alignment along the rail line had less grade seps because it was impossible to build any that would make financial sense. And there would be many more crossings without the grade seps resulting in a reduced speed. So the dog leg was chosen because of the apparent TOD benefits, plus less crossings and higher speed. Would the slower speed and shorter distance to travel cancel out the higher speed dog leg route, possibly.

During the final hearings, Dave Krahn from Dillon came out and said there are in fact no real benefits of the dog leg regarding TOD because of the issues we all know about.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The alignment along the rail line had less grade seps because it was impossible to build any that would make financial sense. And there would be many more crossings without the grade seps resulting in a reduced speed. So the dog leg was chosen because of the apparent TOD benefits, plus less crossings and higher speed. Would the slower speed and shorter distance to travel cancel out the higher speed dog leg route, possibly.

During the final hearings, Dave Krahn from Dillon came out and said there are in fact no real benefits of the dog leg regarding TOD because of the issues we all know about.

But in any case the dogleg alignment requires two extra grade separations simply because it crosses the railway twice, which the Letellier alignment wouldn't have to do. And yeah, as I recall the end-to-end travel time would have been the same for either option.

[buzzg]

The thing I'm still confused about – it seemed like the city and developer were almost surprised they couldn't build proper TOD because of the hydro ROW. Did they not realize it, or thought they could move it? Or was it just classic willful ignorance...

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I get it. They told GEM to abide by the City zoning. They have a difference of opinion and the City has the final decision. You can only act in good faith for so long. And I do believe the City took GEM to court over the lack of playground at McPhillips. GEM paid a significant fine. But I believe they were still in a net gain position with the fine.

Good for the city for holding GEM accountable, they should continue to do so going forward. However, the city is not in the legal position to prevent any developer from developing land that they own, no matter how shaddy the acquisition was. The city only has the right to approve and deny based on their bylaws. As long as GEM is acting in a legal manner, the city has the responsibility to act in good faith. It is the courts Job, not the cities to enforce and impose fines and compensation for breaking the terms.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by buzzg

The thing I'm still confused about – it seemed like the city and developer were almost surprised they couldn't build proper TOD because of the hydro ROW. Did they not realize it, or thought they could move it? Or was it just classic willful ignorance...

Probably the latter. They have to try really hard to gloss over the fact that they built a RT line along a completely isolated corridor with nearly no potential to accommodate TOD. I swear the city always pinches pennies in all the worst places and then conceives these wild splurge plans like the infamous Marion/Archibald pseudofreeway interchange.

[buzzg]

Yeah, it's like how Bishop Grandin Crossing (refuse to call it The Refinery District) is touting itself as been TOD, but you have to cross a rail line and ditch, through a field, and enter the district through the parking lots, of which you may have to walk through 5 to get to your place, as opposed to building the residential towers and some commercial as close to the transit station as possible. This is more of a TKAD (transit kinda adjacent development) area.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

But in any case the dogleg alignment requires two extra grade separations simply because it crosses the railway twice, which the Letellier alignment wouldn't have to do. And yeah, as I recall the end-to-end travel time would have been the same for either option.

Depending on how you look at it, there are 4 grade seps. 2 at the Portage Junction underpass at Jubilee, McGillivray, and Letellier overpass south of Chevrier.

However, we don't really know what the corridor would look like if it paralleled the tracks the whole way. Would there be a grade sep of McGillivray or some of the other streets? We don't know because it wasn't really looked at.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

With that realignment of the rail line, there is now an enormous parcel of land on Pembina occupied only by the Pancake House and the Pemby. I know we've seen a concept for that site before, but I would have to think there is some serious appeal to building something there since it's probably the most obvious (and possibly only) site for a substantial TOD located right on that stretch of Pembina Highway.

[dmacc]

Unfortunately that land is no closer to any station then the Parker lands will be.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Unfortunately that land is no closer to any station then the Parker lands will be.

Yeah, TOD needs to be located near a transit station, not just near a transit line. It's still a great site for development, though, and is at least served by ordinary buses on Pembina.

They should have built an RT station on the overpass at Pembina, equivalent to the one at Osborne, instead of the mostly useless Jubilee station. A Pembina station would still serve the Jubilee housing development pretty well, but it would also serve Pembina and allow a connection between the 60 bus and the RT. It's frustrating that the 60 will be passing below the RT line without connecting to it.

[dmacc]

Yeah, you sure could fit a whole lot right there.

[bomberjet]

It's decently close to Jubilee station across Pembina. The new pathways take you directly there over Pembina, about 500m away. May not officially be TOD, but yes definitely would be a great site for redevelopment.

CN still owns all the land south of old Parker Ave though. North of Parker, the City now owns most of the land. Maybe a deal could be worked out with them. Although they are a tough cookie to crack.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It's decently close to Jubilee station across Pembina. The new pathways take you directly there over Pembina, about 500m away. May not officially be TOD, but yes definitely would be a great site for redevelopment.

That's what I was thinking, I get that it wouldn't be on top of a BRT station but it would still be very close to Jubilee station, as well as the routes that will still serve Pembina.

Even if you factor out transit it would still be a decent place to live... at least there's stuff to walk to on Pembina unlike the Parker/Fort Rouge Yards TOD sites where I don't think there would be so much as a convenience store available unless you're prepared to walk 20+ minutes.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's what I was thinking, I get that it wouldn't be on top of a BRT station but it would still be very close to Jubilee station, as well as the routes that will still serve Pembina.

Even if you factor out transit it would still be a decent place to live... at least there's stuff to walk to on Pembina unlike the Parker/Fort Rouge Yards TOD sites where I don't think there would be so much as a convenience store available unless you're prepared to walk 20+ minutes.

They would both be equally close to grocery stores, Safeway at Pembina& McGilvary for the one your're talking about and Sobey's for the Parker Lands. There is also a Strip mall right at the Corner of Hurst and Waverley. I don't think either would be starved of stuff to walk to.