Winnipeg | Forks Redevelopment | Parcel 4 - Rail Side Initiative | Proposals - Page 18

optimusREIM · #**341** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

I guess the riverwalk is porked..

It wouldn't be if they had done it right to begin with. You'd think we might have a little foresight considering we've always known that river levels fluctuate

bomberjet · #**342** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 4:38 PM**

A thought came to mind yesterday, when thinking about how to regulate water levels.

Everyone on Lake Manitoba hates the Portage Diversion. Especially if it was used to regulate river levels for the convenience of the river walk. So you build a new floodway around the north side of Winnipeg for the Assiniboine, connecting to the Red River or straight into Lake Winnipeg. Where the Assinniobine water is supposed to end up.

Piggy back rail line relocation onto that project and create a new corridor. Abandoned the Portage Diversion. Three problems solved in one, albeit expensive, solution. Flooding, river walk and rail lines. Build an intake control structure on the Red River floodway. And you're done.

Tacheguy · #**343** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

A thought came to mind yesterday, when thinking about how to regulate water levels.

Everyone on Lake Manitoba hates the Portage Diversion. Especially if it was used to regulate river levels for the convenience of the river walk. So you build a new floodway around the north side of Winnipeg for the Assiniboine, connecting to the Red River or straight into Lake Winnipeg. Where the Assinniobine water is supposed to end up.

Piggy back rail line relocation onto that project and create a new corridor. Abandoned the Portage Diversion. Three problems solved in one, albeit expensive, solution. Flooding, river walk and rail lines. Build an intake control structure on the Red River floodway. And you're done.

That is a lot of vision for one dream

Ando · #**344** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 6:54 PM**

Enough to fill a Dreamscape.

bomberjet · #**345** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 8:00 PM**

I feel honoured that my vision is compared to and on the same level with Dreamscape! Thanks you! haha

wags_in_the_peg · #**346** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 8:27 PM**

leave current riverwalk in place and build a second 'higher' one that is flood free makes sense to me. perhaps it could be elevated and swinging and ...well touristy.

jmt18325 · #**347** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I feel honoured that my vision is compared to and on the same level with Dreamscape! Thanks you! haha

Well, rail relocation is dead, so it now occupies the same space in the realm of possibility.

Wolf13 · #**348** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 8:57 PM**

That dream is strangely absent of hot women, very fast cars, and a mobile walk in humidor that you can take with you everywhere you go!

Ando · #**349** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Well, rail relocation is dead, so it now occupies the same space in the realm of possibility.

You keep saying this because you want it to be true. just because a study has been deferred doesn't mean the idea is dead. The feds for one are likely to have an interest in it and there may be $$ available. So you can look forward to the idea resurfacing, like it or not. There is a much higher probability of rail relocation than there is for Dreamscape.

Tacheguy · #**350** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 9:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

leave current riverwalk in place and build a second 'higher' one that is flood free makes sense to me. perhaps it could be elevated and swinging and ...well touristy.

paul Jordan said in the freep today that raising the walkway was not feasible because too many trees would have to go. you would think that there would be some kind of design solution. especially in a design hotbed like Winnipeg.

jmt18325 · #**351** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 9:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ando

You keep saying this because you want it to be true. just because a study has been deferred doesn't mean the idea is dead. The feds for one are likely to have an interest in it and there may be $$ available. So you can look forward to the idea resurfacing, like it or not. There is a much higher probability of rail relocation than there is for Dreamscape.

I expect to be proven right. I don't actually have to prove anything though - the idea is dead for the foreseeable future.

Ando · #**352** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 1:35 PM**

The corpse of the "dead" rail relocation idea appears to be twitching. JMT?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...393166051.html

Urban recluse · #**353** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 2:23 PM**

Good for Bowman. How stupid to not proceed.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2016/09/1...-back-on-track

BigG · #**354** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 2:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ando

The corpse of the "dead" rail relocation idea appears to be twitching. JMT?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...393166051.html

Did the freep get rid of the paywall?

jmt18325 · #**355** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ando

The corpse of the "dead" rail relocation idea appears to be twitching. JMT?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...393166051.html

In this situation, Bowman has as much power to implement rail relocation as he does money to carry it out.

cheswick · #**356** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigG

Did the freep get rid of the paywall?

It's asking me to log in to read the article.

Urban recluse · #**357** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

In this situation, Bowman has as much power to implement rail relocation as he does money to carry it out.

A mayor's support is a good start. I wish him success in attracting enough support to make it happen.

drew · #**358** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

A mayor's support is a good start. I wish him success in attracting enough support to make it happen.

I think the Pallister government has made their position regarding rail re-location abundantly clear at this point - basically to go pound sand.

At this point the City would be wise to focus their strategies on investments that the current provincial gov't may actually support (not exactly sure what that might be) - rather than wasting more time on this particular subject.

Urban recluse · #**359** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 6:13 PM**

I am certain he can multi-task.

Ando · #**360** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

In this situation, Bowman has as much power to implement rail relocation as he does money to carry it out.

Uh ... say what? He's the mayor of the city where we are talking about rail relocation. You seem to be completely ignoring the feds potential involvement which he speaks about as well. We are also just talking about a study at this point, for very little money. You know studies right? Those things that evaluate costs and benefits and make conclusions. Your talk of rail relocation death just seems a little premature.