19 responses so far ↓

• 1 rph // Jul 29, 2014 at 4:01 pm

  I would have lost a bet when the pro-development City of Richmond decided to put in a bike/pedestrian pathway along the length of the rail line they purchased. It wasn’t as if there was public pressure moving this project forward.

  The new pathway runs beside Railway Avenue, which already had dedicated bike lanes on it. Many residents were (pleasantly) surprised by the City building this pathway. The additional bike lanes have now become a defacto family biking route with lots of training wheels and leisurely pedaling.

  It makes me wonder if there was some sort of behind the scenes gentleman’s agreement not to run housing along this corridor. Five million was a small sum to pay for the potential residential land value.

• 2 IanS // Jul 29, 2014 at 4:08 pm

  “…that the city could offer CP the $20 million and put on a covenant or agreement saying if it were ever rezoned to residential /commercial development, then CP would get the full $100 million.”

  Interesting idea, though if CP’s still smarting from the rezoning, I don’t think they would find it very attractive.

  Also, any solicitor drafting or reviewing such a clause from CP’s perspective would have to be very careful. It’s the kind of contractual term that just screams future litigation.

• 3 F.H.Leghorn // Jul 29, 2014 at 4:24 pm

  Tell you what: the government should buy everything and then hire everyone to work there. The socialists’ dream come true without the class struggle element which alienates so many.
  Imagine: no more tough performance assessments, everybody a member of one big union, bureaucrats from Ontario making all the decisions (an area in which they have a stunning track-record of success).
  Want a raise? Don’t work harder, go on strike. Want 2 months off every summer? Put it in the collective agreement. With luck we could wind up just as successful as Italy.
  If it were up to me I’d run a bunch of empty tank-cars with big CRUDE OIL signs on the side back and forth on the line, making sure to blow the horn as loud as possible at every level crossing in Kerrisdale. Result: whipped creme.

• 4 Morven // Jul 29, 2014 at 10:31 pm

  One way of bypassing the legal fences might be for both parties to form a trust or a special purpose company then pay each other out from the proceeds of the eventual land use change.

  The public might appreciate not pouring tax dollars down one big hole.
  -30-

• 5 Neal // Jul 29, 2014 at 10:59 pm

  So here’s what I can’t figure out. Any insight would be appreciated.

  I’ve been living in Vancouver for close to a decade now. I certainly don’t consider myself new in town, but that still puts my arrival in town post-2001 and therefore I’ve never seen a train run along the Arbutus Corridor. I’ve only ever known it to be overgrown, in disrepair, and seemingly abandoned.

  Despite all this, it’s been an “active rail line” the whole time. How is this possible? Specifically,

  1) How can a rail line that is unfit for running trains be considered active?

  2) How can a rail line that is considered active be unfit for running trains?

  To clarify a bit: #1 is along the lines of ‘Is there no requirement to actually attempt to run trains from time to time to keep that designation?’ and #2 is more like ‘As an active operation, are they not subject to any inspections, or basic track maintenance requirements that they need to adhere to?’

  As far as I can tell, the tracks could be removed entirely and the “active rail line” designation could still be kept indefinitely.

• 6 Jeff Leigh // Jul 30, 2014 at 12:14 am

  @Neal #5

  Take a look at the Canada Transportation Act, and the associated acts. It is here:

  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/

  “Active” appears to be being used in contrast to “Abandoned” which is a formal process requiring approval of the commission.

  I think your other questions are getting at the question of state of repair of the line. That may be related to the Certificate of Fitness, which is defined in the Act.

• 7 Neal // Jul 30, 2014 at 8:53 am

  @Jeff Leigh #6

  Thanks for that link. I had read parts of that act previously but was still left scratching my head, wondering if I was missing something.

  Looking through it again, the only requirement for getting a Certificate of Fitness is proving that adequate liability insurance is in place. No requirements about state of repair of the tracks, or intention/ability to operate trains are taken into consideration. After that, your fitness as a railroad operator is never re-visited as long as insurance is maintained.

  On the flip side, abandoning the line involves a year-plus process requiring negotiations with various levels of government.

  In a nutshell, activating and keeping a line active requires basically no ongoing effort. Abandoning it is what takes effort. This seems utterly backwards.

• 8 Joe Just Joe // Jul 30, 2014 at 9:51 am

  Hope someone with more insight can share their expertise on this for me. With the new rules now in place allowing for addition to native reserves, could a native band not in theory buy the ROW from CP and build on it as they please bypassing the COV’s own zoning? I doubt any of them have $100M laying around to buy the parcel but perhaps CP could partner with a local band, or work out a landswap.
  Who knows perhaps a large industrial development on the Squamish lands by the Burrard Bridge would provide CP with a customer for the line.

• 9 Richard // Jul 30, 2014 at 12:20 pm

  As a CoV taxpayer and property owner, it seems to me that the City shouldn’t be allowed to purposely under-zone a property just because they want to depress the purchase price for themselves. Although nothing would surprise me these days.

  If the City wants to buy it for parkland/active greenway transportation, it should pay market value based upon highest and best use, less a discount for time and risk to rezone.

  CP should just put it out on the open market and see what that would bring. That would set the price pretty quickly. If the City wants to step up at that level, they can fill their boots. But it sets a very dangerous precedent for all of us if the City is allowed to use its regulatory powers to depress land values to facilitate an expropriation.

• 10 Ian // Jul 30, 2014 at 1:41 pm

  @Neal I don’t think its backwards at all. Vacant residential lots that don’t have houses on them don’t lose their designation as residential lots. Ditto all manner of other zoned but unused or underutilized land. The corridor is an active rail line until its not. It needn’t be continually utilized to maintain that designation.

  Frankly I find this issue to be fascinating and I can see arguments on both sides of the ledger. In the end, it’ll only get resolved with a good deal of political will on both sides. The legal arguments are too complex to admit of an obvious answer, or clear winner. Certainly, there’s no doubt that CP can continue to own the land indefinitely as a rail line and I don’t think there’s any question that they could clear the tracks tomorrow if they wanted to. PR disaster? Possibly. But they’re not in the business of providing free garden plots. On the other hand, I also don’t think CP can expect their rail corridor to fetch residential value. The city has the right to control zoning. So I think a resolution comes somewhere up the middle.

  I don’t see CP taking $20m now on the possible chance of a future payment later contingent on the city rezoning. Maybe CP can give the city a big VTB. Help finance the sale over a long period of time.

  Frankly, I work for a developer and I don’t think the corridor should ever be anything but a transportation corridor. Combination pedestian/cycling and possible future light rail. Obviously the creme de la creme would fight that last use tooth and nail, but we’ll never be able to replicate that corridor and future generations will shake their heads if we allow it to be developed.

• 11 tf // Jul 30, 2014 at 6:15 pm

  Ian # 10 –
  “… I don’t think the corridor should ever be anything but a transportation corridor. Combination pedestian/cycling and possible future light rail. … we’ll never be able to replicate that corridor and future generations will shake their heads if we allow it to be developed.”

  That’s how I feel about the viaducts.

• 12 boohoo // Jul 30, 2014 at 9:22 pm

  The viaducts are significantly shorter, cross a swath of land that’s mostly parking lot and cut off the city from the water where they do…not sure how these two are alike in anyway?

• 13 gasp // Jul 30, 2014 at 11:50 pm

  According to the letter we just received from the Mayor, the Vision Council apparently doesn’t envision anything for the Arbutus Corridor other than what it is today:

  “As Mayor, I strongly believe that the Arbutus Corridor should remain as it is today – an enjoyable route for people to walk, run and bike along, as well as a home to the many community gardens that contribute to our neighbourhoods.”

  Interesting that there is no mention of a LRT line along that corridor, although that certainly was a consideration when City Council rezoned it in 2000. So is that now off the table? [If so, someone should tell the Planning Department because they’ve repeatedly justified additional density along Arbutus (knowing the Arbutus bus doesn’t meet the needs of the current population) by claiming there will be rapid transit along that corridor.]

  As well, the letter doesn’t mention that the City would need to make significant improvements to that Corridor (for safety reasons) if it was to be used by walkers, runners and bikers. Let’s not forget that the proposed bike lane through the already level and cleared Hadden Park and Kits Beach Park (about 1 km) was at a cost of what? $5 million??

  Anyway, the Mayor’s letter got me wondering as to what the assessed value of the Arbutus Corridor would be if it was classified as merely a greenway or walkway. So I thought a valid comparison would be to another small greenway/walkway park located near the Arbutus Corridor.

  In the 1970’s, the Arbutus Village was developed along Arbutus between King Edward Avenue and Nanton Street. Included in that development was a 3.5 acre greenway/walkway called the Arbutus Village Public Park, which runs from King Edward Avenue at Yew Street (about 250 meters west of the Arbutus Corridor) to the Arbutus Village Shopping Centre, and then west to Valley Drive. This walking route, part of which covers a still active stream channel, was donated to the City by CP in the 1970’s – after CP cleared the land, culverted the stream, built the walking path, installed lighting, built a children’s playground, and planted all the trees.

  According to the BC Assessment rolls, the current 2014 assessed value for the 3.5 acre 1 km Arbutus Village Public Park is $20,475,000 – more than what the City has offered CP for the entire 45 acre 11 km Arbutus Corridor.

  When I previously asked a senior assessor at BC Assessment why this park had such a high assessed value, I was told that they assess the value for parks based on the market value of the land in the surrounding properties – so, for example, a park in Yaletown would be assessed higher than one in Shaughnessy, and one in Shaughnessy would be assessed higher than one in Marpole.

  Since the Arbutus Corridor is comprised of many lots in many neighbourhoods, including about 2+ km on the west side of Shaughnessey, I wouldn’t be surprised if the assessed value of all that land is close to what CP is asking for it ($100 million). At the current mill rate, they’d be paying hundreds of thousands a year in property tax; money which would have to be made up by other taxpayers if the City owned the land instead.

• 14 Neal // Jul 31, 2014 at 12:41 am

  @Ian #10

  To put a finer point on it, what I considered to be backwards is this:

  Abandonment, by definition, occurs through a lack of action. Active, by definition, implies ongoing action.

  Yet in the realm of railway statute, lack of action defaults to an “active” designation while ongoing action is required to achieve an “abandonment”.

  People are free to disagree and may dismiss this as a purely semantic argument, but it strikes me as illogical.

  And I do agree with you that it shouldn’t need continual utilization to maintain the “active” status. But should there be no obligation whatsoever to maintain a minimum level of upkeep?

  Since you compared it to residential property, suppose that a house has been left vacant for 13 years, with minimal upkeep performed by the property owners during that time. The windows are broken, it’s infested with mold, and the structure has started to rot away; in short, it is no longer safe for human habitation. In that case, mechanisms exist to condemn that building. Condemning the building does not disqualify the property or even the structure in question from future residential use, but does require action on behalf of the property owner to get things back up to appropriate standards.

  In the case of the Arbutus Corridor, the tracks were left vacant for 13 years with minimal upkeep performed by the property owners during that time. The ties are rotten, spikes are absent, and it’s entirely paved over with asphalt in parts; in short, it is no longer safe for carrying trains. However, in this case no mechanisms exist to condemn the tracks. Condemning the tracks would not preclude the property or even the tracks themselves from future use as a railway, but would require action on behalf of the property owner to get things back up to appropriate standards. Instead, the tracks are assumed by default to be suitable for use regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

• 15 Threadkiller // Jul 31, 2014 at 1:08 am

  One aspect of the Arbutus Corridor issue I find both irritating and dismaying is the level of hostility being directed toward the community gardens– and gardeners– along the rail corridor (yes, the ones that are to be turfed out by Thursday, and who occupy only a small fraction of the route) in local media. Gee, and here I thought Vancouver was supposed to be on its way to becoming the Greenest City In The Galaxy, or something. Guess again. The trolls that have come out in force to denounce the gardens seem to not only be contemptuous of the idea of gardens and gardening in general, especially along rail rights-of-way, they’ve also got all worked up for a number of other reasons, not least of which is that they suspect the city is offering to purchase the right-of-way solely so that the gardens can continue in situ. Gasp’s post (#13) notwithstanding, I think this is a crock of particularly redolent steer manure. One has to take the long view in those things, and the long view in this case says: Whatever its ultimate usage, act to preserve it while you still can!

  In the lettercol in Wednesday’s Courier one truculent soul demands to know why “they” don’t instead do their gardening “in their own backyards”. Most people in this city with even semi-functional brains are at least dimly aware that community gardens came into being in part precisely because there are a great many people throughout the city, and especially in Kitsilano, that don’t have backyards. Check the length of the waiting lists to get a plot in any community garden in this city.

  My favourite denouncer of the gardens, though, has to be cranky Rhona Raskin, who snarled about them in a twit– sorry-tweet– that was reprinted in the Courier a few weeks ago. I guess it’s hardly surprising [overly personal attack]… should come out tumescently on the side of a corporation that’s been profitably f***ing this city for 130 years.

  It’s amusing to see the Arbutus Corridor, having been devoid of rail traffic for the past 13 years (and even then the only industry it was still servicing was Molson’s brewery) being spoken of by these types as an important transportation link, vital to the economy of the city. Yeah, right. Personally, the only benefit I’ve ever derived from the rail line came when I lived near 8th and Vine in the early 70s. When I heard the whistle of the 3 AM train at the Broadway crossing 3 blocks away, I knew that dammit, I’d stayed up too late again (I wasn’t working much in those days). I have often strolled along the path beside the Seventh Avenue gardens; short as it is, in summer it’s one of the most charming, bucolic, pleasant walks in the city; a small treasure in a city that’s increasingly short of them. I am both furious and deeply saddened to see them lost, as have been so many good and decent things in this city, to corporate greed. What, they couldn’t at least have waited until growing season was over?? To cite that most Canadian of curses, all-too-frequently uttered in rural areas across this country for well over a century, “God damn the CPR”.

• 16 rph // Jul 31, 2014 at 7:18 am

  Well stated #13 + #15. (And an extra thanks for a few well phrased chuckles Threadkiller)

  I suspect most of the anti-garden vitriol has to do with the location of the gardens, as if it were the landowning rich seeking to expand their backyards onto land that is not theirs. And of course if the track were running down Main or Commercial, the opposition would be lessened considerably.

• 17 Threadkiller // Jul 31, 2014 at 8:02 am

  Correction to my #15 post: The Kitsilano community gardens are, of course, located along Sixth Avenue (like, where the rail line runs- duh), not Seventh. My bad.

• 18 Jeff Leigh // Jul 31, 2014 at 9:41 am

  @Neal #14

  My perception is that when land grants were issued in exchange for running a railway, the laws were structured so as to keep that railway running and fulfill the promise, ie making abandonment difficult, and not with an eye to recycling the land to another purpose. If the railway didn’t want to keep operating trains in future, there were mechanisms to turn the line over to another operator who would keep it running.

  I don’t think that it is right to say that no mechanisms exist to condemn the tracks. The railway industry is subject to all sorts of inspections and regulations regarding safe operation. Perhaps not enough enforcement in some instances. But we are mixing up the issue of abandonment (ie taking out the rails) with continued safety inspections, and I suggest that the certificates necessary for safe operation are covered by different rules that the ones covering who owns the property.

  I share your thoughts on rails and rail infrastructure being kept up to certain standards when it impacts others. A good example is the abandoned level rail crossing for a spur that is no longer connected to a track, and is therefore unusable, but which continues to have two rails embedded in the pavement causing a risk of injury to those crossing. Because it is on a right of way across the street, the tracks tend to get left there. If they are crossing the road at an oblique angle, as many of them are, they pose a real risk to cyclists. If we look at Kent in South Vancouver, there are six or eight spur crossings along that route that are not in use any longer, but which the railway has left in the roadway, likely because it would cost money to take them out. When the city is asked to do something about them, they apparently can’t, because the rails are under the railway’s control. There was a bad one in front of the Starbucks at Granville Island. I was on a group fundraising bicycle ride on that route, when a rider in front went over on wet pavement when he caught a wheel on the tracks. In these cases, I think the railway should be required to take out the rails.

• 19 Mark // Jul 31, 2014 at 11:09 am

  @15 & 16

  There is a bit of extra anger because of class issues.

  Same deal with making Point Grey Rd. a local road.

  In either case you would have people disagreeing, but you get an extra % of people in disagreement with anything that benefits the wealthy in any form.

  Not that I don’t think we shouldn’t be eating the ultra rich mind you, but I’m able to separate that feeling from what I think is best for the city overall.