Arbutus: Greenway & Future Streetcar | Proposed

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

My fear is that the city will eventually take ownership of the corridor, and never allow LRT.
I feel they can't tell CP that it's zoned for a transportation corridor only, and then once they buy it at that rate, turn around and never use it for rail transportation. Greenways are nice but they shouldn't could as a transportation corridor.

Agreed -

And they'll do it subversively by imposing strict requirements to underground any streetcar or LRT line (and preserve surface trails and gardens) - then blame hgher levels of government for not funding the project.

Since the Canada Line is in place, transit on Arbutus can start small and be expanded as necessary. i.e. single track streetcar with pullouts at stations for passing.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed -

And they'll do it subversively by imposing strict requirements to underground any streetcar or LRT line (and preserve surface trails and gardens) - then blame hgher levels of government for not funding the project.

Since the Canada Line is in place, transit on Arbutus can start small and be expanded as necessary. i.e. single track streetcar with pullouts at stations for passing.

Yeah, at the rate we're going no surface or elevated transit will ever be seen down the Arbutus Corridor. As much as I prefer grade-separated rail, the Arbutus corridor was originally rail, and not that long ago (only a decade) , so the viability of running another West Coast Express train down it is certainly doable, but to run a proper LRT it would need to be double tracked, and from pictures I see online, it looks like that space exists already

http://www.cpr.ca/en/in-your-communi...uly%202014.pdf

But the "property owners" nearest to it might not realize exactly how much they have encroached upon it. Look at page 21 for an example. Also look at various "parking lots" that are encroaching on it. Anyone know how much space would be needed for a sound buffer?

If CP upgrades the line to be usable, that would essentially be all the work needed to run passenger rail on it, but the problem is... where would it go?

[Conrad Yablonski]

Saw some CP flunkies trying to run a speeder-a truck that can also run on rails-down the line last week the look on the face of the driver was priceless.

You'd think he was headed into an Ebola infected zone he was so frightened.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Conrad Yablonski

Saw some CP flunkies trying to run a speeder-a truck that can also run on rails-down the line last week the look on the face of the driver was priceless.

You'd think he was headed into an Ebola infected zone he was so frightened.

It is unfortunate that CP employees don't feel safe on CP property. So much for property rights.

[spm2013]

....

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Conrad Yablonski

Saw some CP flunkies trying to run a speeder-a truck that can also run on rails-down the line last week the look on the face of the driver was priceless.

I don't see what the problem would be. The worst that could happen is that he could derail - no big deal for a pick-up truck that can simply fold up the hi-rail gear and then just drive to the next level crossing to get back onto the rails again.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't see what the problem would be. The worst that could happen is that he could derail - no big deal for a pick-up truck that can simply fold up the hi-rail gear and then just drive to the next level crossing to get back onto the rails again.

Not quite... vehicles have gotten stuck on tracks before. lol.

I wonder if they were gasping at all the infringements and obstacles on their land...

[ssiguy]

I love it.

The precious wealthy on the Westside bitch about how much taxes they have to pay and then want City Hall to spend mega bucks so they can plant radishes and tulips.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Conrad Yablonski

Saw some CP flunkies trying to run a speeder-a truck that can also run on rails-down the line last week the look on the face of the driver was priceless.

You'd think he was headed into an Ebola infected zone he was so frightened.

This might become the newest Playland Ride.

"11 KMs of HELL on Steel Wheels"
See if you can ride end-to-end without HURLIN'
Bonus points for not hitting non-CPR vehicles

[Conrad Yablonski]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

This might become the newest Playland Ride.

"11 KMs of HELL on Steel Wheels"
See if you can ride end-to-end without HURLIN'
Bonus points for not hitting non-CPR vehicles

I am So There!

[twoNeurons]

If anyone here has done the Whistler Mountaineer, they'd realize that there are places on that journey which are practically in people's back yards. WAY closer than Arbutus is.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

If anyone here has done the Whistler Mountaineer, they'd realize that there are places on that journey which are practically in people's back yards. WAY closer than Arbutus is.

When the Pacific Great Eastern pulled up its tracks after abandoning its interurban service to Horseshoe Bay in 1928, West Van residents thought it was going for good. Imagine their shock when in 1956 Wacky Bennet ordered the railway finally completed from North Vancouver to Squamish (and Quesnel to Prince George) and those residents lost what they thought were their gardens, sheds etc.

[finalcoolman]

Since there are no freight customers, could CP rail theoretically start their own DMU (diesel multiple unit) service on the corridor just out of spite? Are they only legally allowed to do freight or could they do anything they want including passenger service?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

But the optics of the situation are not in CP's favour - they're clearly not using the land and so they obviously have no real pressing need to remove the encroachments.

Ever heard of adverse possession? If they don't kick people off, title can transfer to the encroachers.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

The city of Vancouver has the upper hand here. Sure CP can kick out the gardeners and spend a bunch of cash to bring the rail line back to usable standards and maybe even run trains up to False creek to the horror of those living nearby trying to force a inflated value deal from the city.

However, in addition to this initial investment, it will take a continuous stream of money to keep to the tracks in operating order and guess what, no customers for CP on this route. This means no revenue, just operating expenses.

COV has a supreme court ruling under its belt, they just have to wait out CP and when they get tired of putting out cash for nothing then COV can buy the land at reasonable transportation corridor value.

The CoV has the upper hand for zoning if CP sells the land for non-railway purposes, but if I was CP I would use a run around strategy. I think CP needs a hotel, station, and office building for railway purposes in a very nonconforming to planning rules way. Double down, and go far. Maybe storing oil tanker cars on the line would help a yard space crunch.

There are plenty of cards in CP's deck left to play. And some of it would be playing really dirty in the public eye. But they would certainly cost less than the lost value to any buyer but the CoV that the city has caused. If CP built an office building for railway purposes, then decided to sell it, zoning grand fathers non-conforming structures if they complied with land use at some point. And they would have complied under the railway's jurisdiction.

[spm2013]

....

[MalcolmTucker]

^ That is not true. CP can build any rail infrastructure it wants. It is not bound by any city zoning for rail infrastructure.

[spm2013]

....

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Go read the Arbutus Corridor ODP and tell me it's not true.

Municipal zoning or plans or bylaws have no bearing on railway related activities. The Supreme Court just upheld the principle in a case on airports. They just can't build something not related to the railway and sell it off, like housing. In theory if they were able to get an aerodrome permit from Transport Canada (where you only have to prove safety) they could build an airport on their land too.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Ever heard of adverse possession? If they don't kick people off, title can transfer to the encroachers.

Since 1975, I don't believe legal title can be acquired through adverse possession in British Columbia. But I am no expert on British Columbia property law.

Moreover, in cases of adverse possession, the trespasser must possess the land for a certain period of time without the titled owner's permission. Thus, I believe the titled owner can vitiate any potential legal claim to his land through adverse possession by giving permission to the trespassers before that certain period of time has passed. The titled owner needs to assert his right as the titled owner in some way before a certain period of time; he doesn't necessarily need to kick the trespassers off his land.