Arbutus: Greenway & Future Streetcar | Proposed - Page 47

WarrenC12 · #**921** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 3:26 AM**

My guess would be the COV's transit priorities are

1. Broadway skytrain to UBC
2. Streetcar
3. Arbutus LRT

Translink is interested in #1, but the others aren't even on their radar. The COV could do the streetcar alone, but there's hardly a push to do so from the electorate.

logan5 · #**922** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 5:22 AM**

What a waste if that corridor stays dormant for decades. Underground metro like service at one third the price.

aberdeen5698 · #**923** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 6:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

What a waste if that corridor stays dormant for decades. Underground metro like service at one third the price.

There's no pressing need for it right now (although it would be nice to be able to put in a shared pedestrian/bike path). The most important thing is that the corridor is preserved intact so that it's there when population pressure grows to the point where it will be needed.

logan5 · #**924** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 6:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's no pressing need for it right now (although it would be nice to be able to put in a shared pedestrian/bike path). The most important thing is that the corridor is preserved intact so that it's there when population pressure grows to the point where it will be needed.

No it won't be needed until there is the density there to justify it. I hope there's an Arbutus Corridor plan on the horizon (probly not though) because this is by far the best place to be planning for efficient high density neighbourhoods. Just copy and paste the Cambie Corridor Plan. Easy.

Come to think of it, the Arbutus Corridor would be able to accommodate a much higher capacity than the Canada Line. Down the road, Arbutus should have at least the equivalent density of Central Broadway.

aberdeen5698 · #**925** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Come to think of it, the Arbutus Corridor would be able to accommodate a much higher capacity than the Canada Line. Down the road, Arbutus should have at least the equivalent density of Central Broadway.

The Canada Line could have had a much higher capacity than the Canada Line we actually got if they hadn't cheaped out on everything. It won't be an issue for a while yet because we can increase capacity through the use of more trainsets, but at some point within the next few decades we'll be faced with the question of whether or not we need to expand all the stations. At that point it may well prove to be more effective to put the Arbutus corridor into play.

logicbomb · #**926** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

What a waste if that corridor stays dormant for decades. Underground metro like service at one third the price.

Step 1: Buy land from CP
Step 2: Dig up the ROW and build a cut-and-cover tunnel for future provision of an underground LRT/RRT
Step 3: Sell tracts of land to developers

Everyone wins?

Large Cat · #**927** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Step 1: Buy land from CP
Step 2: Dig up the ROW and build a cut-and-cover tunnel for future provision of an underground LRT/RRT
Step 3: Sell tracts of land to developers

Everyone wins?

Excellent!

AND preserve a slice of the above-ground ROW for a multi-use greenway!

twoNeurons · #**928** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 9:26 PM**

I don't trust the current administration to handle the Arbutus corridor well. If they take ownership of it, they will find a way to bow under pressure to turn it into a greenway, instead of preserving it as one of the last rail ROWs left in the city.

aberdeen5698 · #**929** Posted **Nov 3, 2015, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I don't trust the current administration to handle the Arbutus corridor well. If they take ownership of it, they will find a way to bow under pressure to turn it into a greenway, instead of preserving it as one of the last rail ROWs left in the city.

It can be both.

Bdawe · #**930** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It can be both.

Technically? Yes.

Practically, no. The political fight with the NIMBYs in the area will be big enough with any rapid transit at all, much less one that's ripping through a greenway that they've gotten used to. I would argue that the best thing for future arbutus rail transit is for the CP-City fight to continue into the future until such point where they're ready to build higher order transit in the area. Stashing a few coal-cars on the line would make the transit line even more attractive

swimmer_spe · #**931** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 1:47 AM**

I still do not see the benefit of this corridor for transit. It is too close to the Canada Line.

aberdeen5698 · #**932** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 9:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I still do not see the benefit of this corridor for transit. It is too close to the Canada Line.

Hence my comment that when the Canada Line reaches its ultimate capacity the Arbutus corridor is well positioned to become a relief line.

trofirhen · #**933** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 1:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Hence my comment that when the Canada Line reaches its ultimate capacity the Arbutus corridor is well positioned to become a relief line.

Do you envision an eventual Arbutus Line as rrt (metro) or lrt (light rail)?

swimmer_spe · #**934** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Hence my comment that when the Canada Line reaches its ultimate capacity the Arbutus corridor is well positioned to become a relief line.

Is the Expo or Millennium line at capacity?
When would they envision the Canada line to be at capacity? Could they not just add more cars to the trainsets(after extending the platforms)?

aberdeen5698 · #**935** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Do you envision an eventual Arbutus Line as rrt (metro) or lrt (light rail)?

I don't really envision it as anything right now other than as a transportation corridor which at some point we'll be glad we held on to.

swimmer_spe · #**936** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't really envision it as anything right now other than as a transportation corridor which at some point we'll be glad we held on to.

Why not leave it in CP's hands?
They keep maintaining the ROW. They keep landowners from encroaching. Taxes are collected from them(if they pay taxes on ROW)

When it comes time, then the city can go for it.

officedweller · #**937** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Technically? Yes.

Practically, no. The political fight with the NIMBYs in the area will be big enough with any rapid transit at all, much less one that's ripping through a greenway that they've gotten used to. I would argue that the best thing for future arbutus rail transit is for the CP-City fight to continue into the future until such point where they're ready to build higher order transit in the area. Stashing a few coal-cars on the line would make the transit line even more attractive

I agree with that.
As soon are you require the Arbutus RoW to be used for an underground route, you negate the advantage of the surface RoW.

I suppose it would be easier to cut and cover on the RoW than Arbutus Street (with the opposition to digging up a Greenway), but if you bore to avoid disruption (of the Greenway), you may as well look at boring under any other north-south street instead.

aberdeen5698 · #**938** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why not leave it in CP's hands?
They keep maintaining the ROW. They keep landowners from encroaching. Taxes are collected from them(if they pay taxes on ROW)

When it comes time, then the city can go for it.

Absolutely. That's why the City has the upper hand - they can afford to wait for as long as it takes for CP to sell it, and through their Supreme-Court-upheld right to designate land use they can prevent CP from doing anything with the land that would compromise its use as a transportation corridor.

CP knows this and that's why they tried the "annoy the residents in order to put pressure on the city" approach. But they have to spend money to do that and under the current cost-cutting management if there's no indication that it's going to yield results I'd expect them to give up on it before long.

So my guess is that it's simply going to revert back to the status quo for the indefinite future.

WarrenC12 · #**939** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 9:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

So my guess is that it's simply going to revert back to the status quo for the indefinite future.

Wasn't that the problem though? CP by way of action if not words, is "abandoning" the line, which requires they offer it to the municipal government at salvage value, as per the Federal Railway Act.

trofirhen · #**940** Posted **Nov 4, 2015, 10:33 PM**

Does the fact that in play here are the Salvage Act, the obligation to charging salvage value for it, as in cheap. So howlong will CP keep the line semi-active: just enough to have to sell it? Is this what they want? Is there a way around all this they so that can get good money for it?
And OD, you mentioned boring the tunnel. I think that's the best option here, esp given that rocky escarpment.
It would not be a very long tunnel; maybe 3 or 4 city blocks? (dunno).