Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An examination of the benefits and implementation problems of the transportation/utility corridor concept Klassen, June Peterson 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 K58.pdf [ 4.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097160.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097160-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097160-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097160-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097160-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097160-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097160-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097160-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097160.ris

Full Text

AN EXAMINATION OF THE BENEFITS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS OF THE TRANSPORTATION/UTILITY CORRIDOR CONCEPT By June Peterson Klassen B.A. Special, The University of Alberta, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community & Regional Planning) We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1987 © June Peterson Klassen, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6(3/81) - i i -ABSTRACT The value and f e a s i b i l i t y of implementing the Corridor concept has been debated for over twenty years. A corr idor provides land for the coordinated placement of future l inear f a c i l i t i e s such as highways, railways, p ipel ines, powerlines and municipal services. Few corridors have been establ ished, although there has been obvious interest in the concept. A number of studies into the f e a s i b i l i t y of establ ishing corridors have been completed in the United States, Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia. This thesis examines the benef its, disadvantages and implementation problems associated with the corr idor concept. Through a l i t e r a tu re review, the factors inf luencing l i near f a c i l i t y right-of-way location and width are examined. Also, from the l i t e r a t u r e , the benefits and disadvantages associated with corr idor implementation and the key factors which have inh ib i ted corr idor implementation are i d en t i f i e d . The Alberta corr idor program i s studied and the corr idor or ig ins , design, i n s t i t u t i ona l framework and implementation mechanism i d e n t i f i e d . The case study indicated that a set of unusual circumstances allowed for the establishment of the Alberta corr idors. This thesis concludes that corridors do provide net benefits for the community in the long term but that they are d i f f i c u l t to implement. The major planning impl icat ion of corridors is that they bring right-of-way planning into the sphere of land use planning and reduce the emphasis on economics and engineering. - i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Def in i t ions 2 1.3 Context 3 1.4 Importance of Research 3 1.5 Methodology 4 1.6 Scope 5 1.7 Organization 5 CHAPTER TWO THE ORIGINS OF THE CORRIDOR CONCEPT 2.1 U t i l i t y Accommodation 7 2.2 Urban Road Development 11 2.3 Joint Development Defined 14 2.4 Benefits of Jo int Development 17 2.5 Problems with Joint Development 18 2.6 Implementing Joint Development 21 2.7 Summary 23 CHAPTER THREE FACILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY FACTORS 3.1 Right-of-Way C r i t e r i a 26 3.2 F a c i l i t y Impacts 32 3.3 F a c i l i t y Compatibi l i ty 33 3.4 Conclusion 34 - iv -T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page CHAPTER FOUR THE CORRIDOR CONCEPT 4.1 Def in it ions 36 4.2 Corridor Purpose 40 4.3 Benefits of Corridors 42 4.4 Costs and Disadvantages of Corridors 50 4.5 Conclusion 55 CHAPTER FIVE THE ALBERTA CORRIDOR PROGRAM 5.1 The Program Beginnings 57 5.2 Corridor Implementation 62 5.3 Edmonton Transportat ion/Ut i l i ty Corridor 67 5.4 In s t i tu t iona l Framework 73 5.5 Consideration of Alberta Corridor Program 78 5.6 Conclusion 84 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Hypothesis Conclusions 85 6.2 Alternat ives for Corridor Implementation 86 6.3 Further Research 88 6.4 Implications for Planning 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY 90 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 F a c i l i t y Location Factors 28 Table 2 Typical P ipel ine Rights-of-Way 29 Table 3 Typical Powerline Rights-of-Way 30 Table 4 Typical Highway Rights-of-Way 31 Table 5 F a c i l i t y Compatibi l i ty 35 Table 6 Example of Rights-of-Way Savings 44 Table 7 L i s t of R.D.A.s 64 - vi -LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Route Selection Corridor 37 Figure 2 Corridor Land Allocation 39 Figure 3 Pipelines in South Edmonton 43 Figure 4 Edmonton and Sherwood Park West R.D.A.s 60 Figure 5 Ring Road Alignments 63 Figure 6 Township Survey 68 Figure 7 Ideal Cross-Sections 70 Figure 8 Corridor Land Classes 72 - v i i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express my appreciation to my faculty advisors, S. Pendakur and B. Wiesman, for their guidance, encouragement and their patience during preparation of my thesis. I am eternally grateful for the two Central Mortgage and Housing Scholarships which allowed me to take the time to pursue my degree. Special thanks go to Charlie Weir for his support, guidance and encouragement and for his untiring promotion of Corridors. In part icular, I thank my husband for his continued support, assistance and patience. - 1 -CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The Corridor concept has been discussed and debated primarily by transportation engineers and planners for over twenty years. It is argued that Corridors can provide a wide range of benefits to the community and to the user, and that these benefits outweigh the disadvantages imposed by implementing a Corridor. Even with this discussion and debate, few Corridors have been established. It is the purpose of this thesis is to test the following hypotheses: 1. That Corridors provide economic, environmental and social net benefits for the community in the long term. 2. That, in spite of the benefits to the community, Corridors have not been established universally because: a) the need to own the land requires a large capital investment; b) determining the appropriate Corridor width and location is d i f f i cu l t due to the variety of f a c i l i t i e s having incompatible location requirements; and c) the lack of an institutional framework to coordinate the variety of regulatory agencies and interests involved with the linear f a c i l i t i e s . The specific objectives to be met include the following: a) consider the origins of the Corridor concept from the practice of u t i l i t y accommodation and the Joint Development concept; - 2 -b) identify the right-of-way requirements, locational constraints and institutional organization associated with the various types of l inear f a c i l i t i e s ; c) explain the Corridor concept and identify from the l iterature the benefits and the disadvantages to corridor implementation; d) examine the implementation of the Corridor concept in Alberta to identify where and why this corridor has been successful and to identify implementation problems. 1.2 Definitions Easement - The right held by one person to make use of the land of another for a limited purpose (U .S .D . I . , 1975, C - l ) . Right-of-Way - The legal right through permit, lease, easement, license or purchase for use, occupancy, or access across land or water areas for a specified purpose or purposes (U .S .D . I . , 1975, C-3). Linear Fac i l i ty - A f a c i l i t y requiring a narrow continuous right-of-way such as a highway, railway, pipeline or powerline. Shared Use of Right-of-Way - The use of a right-of-way by more than one company's f a c i l i t i e s . Joint Use or Joint Use of Rights-of-Way - Operating f a c i l i t i e s of the same or different systems placed parallel to each other in as close proximity as practical (U .S .D . I . , 1975, C-2). Joint Development or Multiple Use of Ri ghts-of-Way - Is the use or occupancy of a transportation fac i l i t y right-of-way or lands associated with the right-of-way by other land uses such as residential , industr ia l , recreational, commercial land use or u t i l i t i e s . - 3 -Planning Corridor or Route Selection Corridor - A broad area joining the origin and destination that has been preliminarily evaluated for environmental, economic and social constraints, in which the linear fac i l i ty route alternatives wil l be identi f ied. Joint Use Corridor, Multiple Purpose Corridor, U t i l i t y Corridor or  Transportation/Util ity Corridor - A strip of land intentionally set aside through legis lat ive or other means for the purpose of accommodating future linear f a c i l i t i e s . The Corridor width is partitioned to locate similar f a c i l i t i e s together. Re l iab i l i ty - The combination of effects on a f a c i l i t y ' s capability to ef f ic ient ly and effectively maintain continued service relevant to the probability and consequences of service disruptions (U .S .D . I . , 1975, C-3). 1.3 Context The majority of the l i terature on Joint Development and the Corridor concept relate to the United States transportation and u t i l i t y planning and implementation process during the late 1960's and the early 19701s. This l i terature often relates to implementation processes that lack public participation and environmental impact assessments. The majority of the problems that gave rise to consideration of Joint Development and Corridors identified in this l i terature are s t i l l valid and are appropriate for the Canadian s i tuation. 1.4 Importance of Research There has been a continuing debate in the l iterature about the value of establishing Corridors. Many agencies and groups, such as the United States - 4 -Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service (Montana), the American Society of Civ i l Engineers, the Western Ut i l i ty Group (a group of electric and gas energy, communication and water service companies from 11 western states), the Brit i sh Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources have recently studied the Corridor concept to determine the benefits of, the need for and the disadvantages and costs associated with the Corridor implementation. This thesis will establish that Corridors provide net benefits for the community in the long term. Further, i t will c lari fy the issues that have limited the application of the Corridor concept. There will continue to be the need for rights-of-way for pipelines, powerlines and other u t i l i t y services in the future, until there is a major structural change in energy production and in the petroleum and petrochemical industry. The need for additional transportation f a c i l i t i e s is limited. Railway lines are being abandoned not expanded, and few new highways will l ike ly be constructed. The Corridor concept offers a means to reduce the adverse impacts associated with these f a c i l i t i e s . 1.5 Methodology The hyopthesis will be tested and proved through: a) a l i terature review to identify the benefits and disadvantages of Corridors; b) a l i terature review to identify the right-of-way requirements and locational constraints associated with highways, pipelines and powerli nes; - 5 -c) a case study of the Edmonton Transportation/Util ity Corridor established in Alberta to identify the implementation problems. Information will be obtained through a review of existing documents, interviews with administrators and from the working experience of the author with the program. 1.6 Scope In Alberta there are two designated Corridors, however, the thesis will describe and discuss only the Edmonton Corridor, as the Calgary Corridor is a parallel case. Much of the l i terature reviewed relates to the United States process and to the conditions in the late 1960's and early 1970's but the problems and issues which gave rise to the Corridors concept continue to plague the various linear f a c i l i t i e s in the United States and in Canada. The benefits and disadvantages of Corridors outlined in the l iterature wil l be used to support the hypothesis that Corridors provide net benefits to the community in the long term. A detailed cost benefit analysis will not be undertaken. The costs and benefits associated with a Corridor are site specific ( i . e . , the number and types of f a c i l i t i e s , the topography, the so i l s , the settlement and land ownership pattern) a l l affect the values assigned the benefits and disadvantages. 1.7 Organization In Chapter Two, the concepts from which the Corridor concept developed wil l be examined. The practice of u t i l i t y accommodation and the concept of Joint Development will be examined to identify the origins, benefits, - 6 -implementation mechanism and the problems. The various companies and agencies that provide transportation and u t i l i t y services will be identified and their roles and constraints for implementation cooperation discussed. In Chapter Three, the factors that influence the location and width of the rights-of-way for pipelines, powerlines, highways, railways and communication f a c i l i t i e s will be examined. The location parameters, f ac i l i t y impacts and in ter fac i l i ty compatibility problems that affect the right-of-way requirements will be discussed. The di f f icul ty in projecting future right-of-way requirements will be examined. In Chapter Four, the Corridor concept will be defined and the purposes that Corridors achieve will be presented. The benefits and disadvantages that are anticipated by corridor implementation will be outlined. It will be argued that in the long term, the benefits of Corridors outweigh the di sadvantages. In Chapter Five, the implementation of the Corridor concept in Alberta wil l be discussed. The implementation mechanism and the original intent of the Corridors will be identi f ied. The design of the Corridor will be explained and i l lus trated . In addition, the various agencies involved in the implementation of the Corridor and their roles will be identif ied. The program wil l be considered and the reasons for the success and the problems that have arisen will be identi f ied. In Chapter Six, the conditions necessary for the establishment of a Corridor will be outlined. Issues which require further research will be identi f ied. F ina l ly , the implications of the Corridor concept to planning wil1 be discussed. - 7 -CHAPTER TWO THE ORIGINS OF THE CORRIDOR CONCEPT This chapter provides background material on the concepts from which the Corridor concept evolved. A review of the l iterature indicates that the Corridor concept has evolved from two major concepts: u t i l i t y accommodation within urban road rights-of-way and Joint Development or multiple use of rights-of-way. Ut i l i t y accommodation within road rights-of-way refers to locating pipelines, powerlines and municipal services, such as natural gas l ines, sewer lines and water lines within a road right-of-way. Joint development or multiple use of rights-of-way refers to the construction of a recreational, industr ia l , commerical or residential land use within or adjacent to a highway, freeway or rapid transit right-of-way. Many of the objectives, benefits, disadvantages and implementation problems associated with these earl ier concepts s t i l l apply to the Corridor concept and their identification will fac i l i ta te a better understanding of the discussion of the Corridor concept in the next chapter. 2.1 U t i l i t y Accommodation In the past, u t i l i t i e s had not been well integrated into urban development due to the way the services developed and the number of agencies involved and their mandates. Many c i t ies or portions of c i t ies were built before the development of urban u t i l i t y services and had no provision for accommodating their right-of-way requirements (American Public Works Association (A.P.W.A.) , 1974, 9). Today many different u t i l i t y services are provided in most urban areas, including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, - 8 -gas, e lectric power, telephone, telegraph, cable T . V . , street l ight ing, t ra f f i c signal cable, police signal cable, f ire signal cable, combined sewers, chi l led water and steam (Hoffman, 1974, 8). As servicing developed, water, sewer and drainage services were provided by a public agency (a municipality or special d i s tr i c t or authority) (A.P.W.A., 1974, 1; Hoffman, 1974, 8). The other u t i l i t i e s such as telephone, telegraph and e lectr ic i ty were typical ly provided by investor owned companies that developed from inventions and entrepreneural efforts (Hoffman, 1974, 8; A.P.W.A. , 1974, 9). These u t i l i t i e s , due to their physical nature, are in effect natural monopolies (Nelson, 1967, 33). It would be too costly to have competing services that require individual pipelines or powerlines so one company is usually granted an exclusive service area. Government has established regulatory agencies to control operating procedures, service requirements, rates and profits for these u t i l i t i e s (Nelson, 1967, 34). The numerous agencies involved in the provision of services has created d i f f icu l t ies in coordinating the development of the services: Each of these regulatory agencies, and each u t i l i t y service agency (investor-owned or public) , has i ts own clientele to serve, i ts own interests to protect, and its own limited perspective on the problems of u t i l i t y accommodation. One wants to maximize the return on investment, one wants to minimize rates, one wants to protect workmen, one wants to reduce traff ice congestion, one wants to prevent damage to the pavement, one wants to beautify the community, and so on. Measures designed to optimize one of these objectives often conflicts with others. Each resolution of a problem ultimately has an effect . . .on a variety of groups: the u t i l i t y company and its customers, the municipality and the taxpayer, the motorist, the abutting property owner or resident. . . Hoffman, 1974, 9) . U t i l i t y services require narrow continuous rights-of-way and, unlike most other land uses, do not require exclusive use of their land requirements. The easement is a limited interest in land and runs with the land. It grants the power to construct and operate a f a c i l i t y but does not - 9 -remove the land from the original ownership. Often the owner can resume non-intensive land uses. In many municipalities during the 1960's, u t i l i t i e s were not incorporated into the municipal land use planning process. The municipality provided the planning for c i t i e s , while the individual u t i l i t i e s provided their own planning (A.P.W.A., 1974, 9). This lack of coordination resulted in numerous problems for the u t i l i t i e s . In many cases, the road righs-of-way were too narrow to accommodate u t i l i t i e s or roadway realignments forced u t i l i t y relocations or changes in planned population densities resulted in the need to expand the capacity of u t i l i t y services. These problems lead to the establishment of standards and procedures for accommodating u t i l i t i e s within road rights-of-way. McGrath has indicated that u t i l i t i e s are a natural use of the underground as they serve the same abutting lands and buildings that the roads and streets serve, which reduces the need for additional rights-of-way (1965, 128). Most urban centres in North America with public services have allowed the placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers, natural gas l ines, e lectric distribution lines and communication c ircuits within the road rights-of-way. Many jurisdictions have adopted u t i l i t y accommodation policies which specify the location, the minimum technical standards and the procedures for the placement of a u t i l i t y fac i l i ty within a road right-of-way. A review of u t i l i t y accommodation policies within the United States was undertaken and reported in the 1976 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 34 t i t l e d , Policies for the Accommodation of Ut i l i t i e s on  Highway Rights-of-Way. The study indicated that while most jurisdictions had an accommodation policy, there was l i t t l e uniformity of standards, even - 10 -though the f a c i l i t i e s were similar. Brown (1973) and Clinger (1982) discuss current accommodation policies for Florida and Texas. Florida was considering the use of u t i l i t y zones. A u t i l i t y zone was a strip of land on either side of the road within the right-of-way that was designed to accommodate specific u t i l i t y f a c i l i t i e s (Brown, 1973, 15). Texas has adopted a U t i l i t y Accommodation Policy governing the location and methods for insta l l ing and maintaining u t i l i t y lines on the State highway system. Many jurisdict ions had policies for u t i l i t i e s crossing their roads but were opposed to parallel roadway f a c i l i t i e s . This was due to the fact that many jurisdictions adopted the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Off ic ials (A.A.S.H.T.O.) report, A Guide for Accommodating  U t i l i t i e s on Highway Rights-of-Way, as a model for their policies (N.C.H.R.P. , 1976, i ) . The A .A .S .H .T .O. had adopted a policy which did not permit the longitudinal placement of u t i l i t i e s on freeway rights-of-way, except in extreme cases and under s t r i c t ly controlled conditions (N.C.H.R.P. , 1976, 3). Other reasons for the opposition to paralleling u t i l i t i e s include safety considerations (e .g . , vehicles hitting above ground structures), the need for tree trimming, the costs to cut and repair pavement, visual impacts of u t i l i t i e s , t raf f i c flow reduction, reduced roadway expansion opportunities and the increased potential for future u t i l i t y relocation (Lemly, 1962, 1-32; Nelson, 1962, 33-51; Blensly, 1962, 52-59). U t i l i t y relocation has been a major concern to both transportation agencies and u t i l i t i e s . The transportation agencies do not want their f l e x i b i l i t y to expand a roadway inhibited by u t i l i t y rights-of-way within or adjacent to the right-of-way and the project delayed and costs increased - 11 -by u t i l i t y relocations (Williams, 1977, 57; Highway Research Board, 1966, 60). The u t i l i t i e s are concerned, as relocation often requires the search for and acquisition of new right-of-way and the replacement of a f a c i l i t y . The agency that must pay for the relocation varies with jurisdict ion and situation. However, unless a reimbursement statute is adopted, the u t i l i t y usually bears the costs (N.C.H.R.P . , 1980, 2). There were a number of benefits for the accommodation of u t i l i t i e s in road rights-of-way, including lower right-of-way costs and ease of access to consumers and ease for maintenance (Lemly, 1962, 1-32; Nelson, 1962, 33-51; Blensly, 1962, 52-59). U t i l i t y accommodation demonstrated that transportation and different u t i l i t i e s can be placed in close proximity and result in few technical incompatibil it ies. It also demonstrates that the multiple use of rights-of-way provide economic benefits for the community. 2.2 Urban Road Development Beginning in the early 1940's, the impact of the automobile was being felt in major cit ies in North America. The number of automobiles had greatly increased and they were the common mode of trave l . This lead to problems of congestion as the traf f ic load increased on roads not designed for these volumes. The engineering solution to roadway congestion in the city centre was to propose the construction of major freeways or expressways or a beltway, ring road or bypass. The beltway or bypass was designed to divert traff ic around the centre that did not need access to the c i ty . Additional functions were to provide high speed access for inter-regional traf f ic (city to region) and for intra-- 12 -regional traf f i c (one neighbourhood to another), as well as to provide for scenic drives. The expressway or freeway was designed to alleviate traff ic congestion in the city by providing a limited access multi-lane fac i l i t y either to the city centre or across the c i ty . Freeways did reduce congestion for a short time but the improvement in accessibi l i ty often lead to an increase in use due to the redistribution of the existing traf f ic and to the generation of additional traf f i c from adjacent land uses. There are a number of land uses with high accessibi l i ty requirements such as industrial d i s t r i c t s , regional shopping centres, special commercial areas, university and college campuses, medical d i s t r i c t s , major recreation attractions, and high-density housing which benefit from proximity to a freeway (Stuart, 1968, 3). Freeways, while designed to relieve traff ic problems, created another set of concerns. Often the freeways were required to relieve congestion in developed areas. Using expropriation powers, major road rights-of-way were pushed through well established but generally lower income residential areas. This was termed slum removal or urban renewal. As Stuart states, these f a c i l i t i e s created a number of impacts: Urban freeways have frequently been cr i t i c i zed for their disruption of established neighbourhoods, for the removal of valuable land from municipal tax r o l l s , and for the creation of substantial relocation problems for displaced businesses and households (1968, 3). Due to the limited access requirement, the freeway became an effective barrier to cross movement. In addition, freeway programs had significant f iscal impacts due to major land acquisition and capital costs. The freeway also lead to a decrease in a ir quality. - 13 -It is interesting to note that the opposition to freeways tended to focus on the automobile and not all vehicular t r a f f i c . There was widespread support for public transit in i t iat ives as a means to relieve traf f ic congestion. However, as Sidamon-Eristoff notes, highways and transit: . . . a r e intended to satisfy different but complementary needs and desires, and that subways cannot handle both masses of people and goods... (1970, 470). It is also of note that the freeway cri t ic ism centred on their impacts and not on the f a c i l i t y i t s e l f . The most unique perspective of urban freeways is that their rights-of-way are underutilized. McGrath notes that a road right-of-way is seen: . . .as nothing but a paved skin surface that is hardly occupied at a l l , except by an occasional person or vehicle which passes by (1965, 125). Sidamon-Eristoff has also noted this phenomena and states: ...highway engineers, planner and architects quite naturally view the space over, under or next to the highway right-of-way as wasted unless i t is used for some other beneficial purpose (1971, 469). A major problem transportation engineers must cope with is the fact that freeway planning is long range. As Leisch notes, a 20 year planning period is appropriate for freeways and that 5 to 10 years are required to plan, design and construct the f a c i l i t y (1969, 83). Further Leisch states: Fully effective legislation for the protection of future rights-of-way is non-existent. Another di f f icul ty is that funds normally are not available for the purchase of land that may not be required for construction until 10, 15 or 20 years later (1969, 84). The problems with freeway development are primarily a result of a lack of mechanism for long range right-of-way preservation, and the soc ia l , fiscal and environmental impacts imposed on adjacent lands. - 14 -In order to resolve these problems and to take advantage of the high accessibi l i ty land uses, transportation engineers and planners turned to the concept of joint development. Rivkin noted that: Much of the interest expressed in joint development has come from persons who view i t as a way to balance, for public benefit, the land-use impacts of highways and rapid rail and to mitigate the adverse environmental, economic or social impacts of transportation f a c i l i t i e s on communities (1977, 32). The growing opposition to freeway development in the late 1960's reflected the public's opposition to the existing planning process which focused on efficiency and economics but ignored social and environmental impacts and costs. This opposition was extended to most major linear f a c i l i t y developments, including pipelines. All of these f a c i l i t i e s can impose severe environmental, social and economic impacts on the lands they cross. The Joint Development concept and the u t i l i ty Corridor concept were developed to mitigate many of these impacts. 2.3 Joint Development Defined Joint Development has a spatial and temporal aspect, as it implies compatible or related f a c i l i t i e s built at the same time. Van Zandt defines Joint Development as: . . . the joint use or occupancy of a specific limited land area for more than one purpose, such as the use of highway right-of-way by non-highway type f a c i l i t i e s , structures, structural elements or act iv i t ies (1972, 3-1). Rivkin limits the term to: . . .projects related in space and time to the construction of a highway or a rapid rai l l ine (1977, 32). - 15 -Opiela broadens the terms to be a: . . .process by which major public f a c i l i t i e s are constructed in concert with other projects through the coordinated efforts of public or private agencies, or both. This definition implies projects are related in time and space to public projects and implemented using an integrated approach (1980, 71). The land under, over, beside the fac i l i ty or adjacent to the fac i l i ty right-of-way was seen as appropriate for Joint Development. One of the forms of Joint Development that received a great deal of attention was air rights, which involves the use of the space over a f a c i l i t y . This type of Joint Development has been used since medieval and Renaissance times with the construction of shops over bridges, such as the Ponte Vecchio in Florence (United States Department of Transportation (U.S .D.T. ) , Federal Highway Administration ( [ F . H . A . ] , 1979,3). I n i t i a l l y , Joint Development projects were directly related to the transportation f a c i l i t y , such as concessions for transit stations or roadside rest areas. However, over time the types of land uses broadened to include f a c i l i t i e s that created a demand for the transportation f a c i l i t y (e .g . , high rise apartments on transit l ines) or that required a central location. The opportunities that were available for Joint Development included improvements to transit f a c i l i t i e s and airports, railroad improvements or abandonments, and terminals or mode change points (Engelen, 1976, 565). The primary opportunity for Joint Development was freeway development. When a road is to be constructed, the f i r s t acquisition priority is to acquire the right-of-way i t s e l f . However, due to access or size constraints, i t is often necessary to buy entire parcels, even though only a portion of the parcel is required for the road. The remanent or the portion not - 16 -required for the right-of-way i t se l f can be kept and incorporated into the right-of-way, or i t can be separated from the right-of-way and leased or sold for other uses. This type of land offered large areas for Joint Development opportunities. As interest in Joint Development increased, i t was recommended that these lands always be purchased. It was argued that the additional land could be economically purchased. Powell noted that: In addition to the area needed for a highway corridor, highway departments could acquire sufficient area for these additional uses at very l i t t l e extra cost, considering severance damages and right-of-way costs for the highway only (1972, 635). Stuart also noted that: The total cost of this procedure is l ikely to be about the same as the cost of acquiring freeway rights-of-way (plus severance damage payments) under present practices, so that multiple-purpose sites would, in effect, be nearly cost-free (1968, 5). Van Zandt identified 10 categories of Joint Development projects, including buildings and structures, parks and recreation, parking, storage, transportation (other modes), u t i l i t i e s , multiple use complexes (residential or commercial), convenience stops (rest areas), pedestrian ways, and miscellaneous (1972, 22). A few of the various types of joint use the Federal Highway Administration has identified includes mini-parks, nature t r a i l s , bus parking and storage, rest areas, police inspection areas, garden plots and a highway maintenance station (U.S .D.T. , 1979, 5). The Joint Development concept had evolved from the use of the underutilized land over, under and beside the roadway within the right-of-way for complementary land uses to the promotion of the acquisition of lands outside the right-of-way for a wide variety of related and unrelated land uses. - 17 -2.4 Benefits of Joint Development The proponents of Joint Development stated that Joint Development could fac i l i ta te freeway (or transit) development, mitigate the environmental, social and fiscal impacts of f a c i l i t y development and increase the use of the f a c i l i t y . The growing public opposition to freeway developments in developed areas was a primary in i t ia tor of Joint Development. The linking of support for a public or private development with freeway development was seen as a means to get roadway approval (Van Zandt, 1968, 4-8; George, 1971, 224; R . T . A . C . , 1979, 2). The visual impacts and the barrier effect of the freeway development could be reduced by joint use to blend the fac i l i ty into the environment (U.S .D.T. , F . H . A . , 1979, 3; Mino, 1965, 110; Stuart, 1968, 2). The construction costs, as well as the lost tax revenues, could be offset by lease or by sale of the lands (Powell, 1972 , 635: Urban Land Institute, 1980, 39; Van Zandt, 1968, 4-8). The stacking of land uses would reduce the total land required for these uses (Van Zandt, 1968, 4-8; Payne, 1968, 38). The control of the lands adjacent to the transportation fac i l i ty was also seen as a means to protect the fac i l i ty from incompatible land uses that could reduce the efficiency of the fac i l i t y (Van Zandt, 1968, 4-8). In the case of transi t , the abi l i ty to direct high density land uses to the land adjacent to the fac i l i t y was seen as a means to insure ridership was sufficient to just ify the fac i l i t y (Urban Land Institute, 1980, 39). Even with a l l of these expected benefits, few Joint Development projects were established primarily due to the problems with implementation. - 18 -2.5 Problems with Joint Development The major concerns over Joint Development are not directed to technical compatibility problems of combining different uses in a relatively confined area but are centred on implementation problems. McGrath identified poor location for Joint Development projects, physical restrictions to design, higher development costs and legal issues as problems with multiple use (1965, 126). Van Zandt identified the following problems with Joint Development: - Di f f icul t ies in coordination of public and private development. - Di f f icul t ies in reconciling varying lead time differences for accomplishment by multiple sponsors. - Di f f icul t ies of pooling resources of multiple governmental agenci es. - Lack of clear jurisdict ional authority can cause undue delays and lost time. - Approval (and therefore implementation) delays due to multiple chai ns-of-command. - Introduction of complications occasioned by the enlarged scope of a highway project with attendant increase in community relations problems. - The fear by the local community of state intervention, even where assured of the right of approval. - The poss ibi l i ty that the highway department's resulting role of landlord, property manager or developer may conflict with its primary function. - Possible increased highway construction cost, consequently causing greater d i f f icu l ty in obtaining public funds. - Construction costs and economic risks can make joint development projects in airspace over highway more expensive than nearby land. - Major changes or modification to airspace structures can be d i f f i cu l t to achieve. - Airspace structures can create adverse tunnel effects on highway users. - Highway f a c i l i t y change or expansion will be less f lexible . - Expansion of non-highway element may be prevented. - Environmental problems of noise, vibration, fumes and odors can be more d i f f i cu l t and costly to deal with. - Combined maintenance costs for joint development can be greater than i f each element were locationally separated (1972, 4-8, 4-9). On reviewing the benefits of Joint Development, there is an impression that al l of the land adjacent to a transportation fac i l i ty is suitable for - 19 -development. However, a freeway is a limited access f a c i l i t y , which means that access from adjacent land is prohibited. Access to the freeway is by the grade separated interchanges for the intersecting crossroads. The lands within one-half mile of each interchange are the most suitable for Joint Development (Stuart, 1968, 3). Traffic will leave the freeway to go to establishments that appear to be near an interchange. Stuart notes that Joint Development is: . . .appropriate and feasible where surrounding land values are high or that exhibit special s ite advantages in relation to surrounding developments (1968, 2). The majority of the lands adjacent to the freeway, except for the interchange nodes and special s ites, are not suitable for high accessibi l i ty land uses. Land adjacent to transit lines have high accessibi l i ty nodes at transit stations (Urban Land Institute, 1980, 39). In addition, the purchase of land adjacent to the right-of-way that is not subject to severance will increase the total land acquisition costs for agencies often having restricted budgets. A related problem is the assembly of parcels of sufficient size and configuration suitable for development. Portions of parcels that l i e outside the right-of-way and are considered to be subject to severance are often narrow strips or other awkward shapes. Also, many parcels have to be acquired, as the access to them wil l be eliminated by the right-of-way. In both of these situations, i t will be necessary to buy even more land to make these parcels developable by providing sufficient size or to provide access. The authority to acquire the land for a transportation fac i l i ty is generally granted to the appropriate transportation department. The mandate granted often limits the acquisition to land needed for the right-of-way - 20 -only. Severance damages are paid to the owners of parcels that continue to hold the land, even though the land is often rendered undevelopable. Even i f an agency could acquire additional lands outside the right-of-way, the courts have not supported the acquisition of the additional land solely for the purpose of sel l ing to recapture costs (Rivkin, 1977, 33). The responsibility for the design and construction of a transportation f a c i l i t y rests with the appropriate municipal or provincial (state) transportation department. The various Joint Development projects are generally not transportation related (except for rest areas, transit stations, etc) and are the responsibility of other agencies, such as housing or parks departments, or in many cases involve private companies. Joint Development can result in the involvement of various types and levels of public agencies and the private sector. Problems arise, as no one agency has overall responsibility for the various components of the entire project. Agency l iaison is required to coordinate planning, construction, maintenance and to pool resources (Stuart, 1968, 5). Joint Development is promoted as a means of fac i l i ta t ing the approval of a transportation f a c i l i t y , however, the linking of other land users increases the number of agencies that must review the project and results in long review periods. This delay has lead many potential projects to locate outside but adjacent to a proposed Joint Development area (Rivkin, 1977, 33). In fact, Simon- Eris tof f states that: . . .no major highway project, urban or rural , was ever sold to the community through which i t passed by touting the poss ibi l i t ies of joint development (1971, 469). The transportation f a c i l i t y can generate significant environmental impacts on the adjacent lands which l imit the attractiveness of these sites. - 21 -The automobile creates air pollution and al l transportation modes result in noise pollution, vibration problems and visual impacts. These must be mitigated by the design of the Joint Development project and result in higher costs. Depending upon the specific development, the adjacent use can have a negative visual impact for the travell ing public by creating visual tunnels and distracting poles or structures. A related problem is safety, both with respect to the accident potential from travell ing vehicles on the Joint Development ac t iv i t i e s , as well as to vehicles from the adjacent use, such as fa l l ing objects or above ground structures. 2.6 Implementing Joint Development Joint Development involves at least two different land uses, one of which is a transportation f a c i l i t y , and requires the coordination of the agencies responsible for planning, operation and maintenance of the f a c i l i t i e s . Engelen attributes the lack of success in Joint Development to poorly developed institutions to coordinate development (1976, 35). Engelen also identifies organization cr i t er ia to achieve Joint Development, including the flexible use of funds, a broad mandate, the use of existing institutions or the corporation concept at the Corridor level and the project level respectively (1976, 14). Several organizational alternatives have been suggested including: the expansion of transportation agency powers and responsibi l i t ies; a multifunctional public corporation; a private corporation; a land banking and land assembly and management commission; a special multipurpose development d is tr ic t or use of. contracts to estabish public-private relationships (Engelen, 1976, 14). - 22 -A transportation agency would be appropriate where the other land uses involved uses related to transportation, however, i f the other uses are unrelated, the agency may not promote their interests (Engelen, 1976, 36). Rivkin has noted that transportation agencies often played a reactive or cooperative role due to leg is lat ive , f inancia l , pol i t ical and institutional constraints (1977, 37). A multi-functional agency would be appropriate given sufficient funds and mandate but these agencies are often: . . . r e s t r i c t ed in the amounts and types of non-public developments they can include in their projects and in the ways in which they can cooperate with private investors and developers (Engelen, 1976, 37). Private corporations have been used for major redevelopment projects, however, they would have d i f f icu l ty assembling land for Joint Development (Engelen, 1976, 37). Land banking provides the mechanism to assemble and dispose of land and achieve coordination through control of development rights (Engelen, 1976, 38). Development d i s t r i c t s , by offering special financing or basic infrastructure, promote the development in an area (Engelen, 1976, 38). Contracts could be used to require coordination and compliance with a Joint Development plan (Engelen, 1976, 38). Opiela identified five types of institutional mechanisms for Joint Development, including expediting agencies, land use controls, development rights, municipal powers and development agencies (1980, 76). Expediting agencies would fac i l i ta te Joint Development by reducing the time and cost in the approval process (Opiela, 1980, 76). Land use controls such as zoning, density bonus allowances (Opiela, 1980, 78) and transferable development rights (Opiela, 1980, 79) can be used to promote development. By exercising - 23 -the municipal powers of expropriation, urban renewal, land banking and through the provision of infrastructure Joint Development can be promoted (Opiela, 1980, 80). Public or quasi-public development agencies can be estabished and granted: . . . a range of powers and functions to allow f l e x i b i l i t y in acquiring land, selecting and financing projects, and levying special taxes . . . [or be] limited to advocating projects and providing planning services (Opiela, 1980, 81). Opiela (1980, 71-88) also identified four types of fiscal mechanisms, including taxing powers (tax abatement, tax rate differential and tax increment financing), infrastructure investments (capital f ac i l i t y investments, improvement area development), risk assumption (development loans and mortgages, public investment) and grants (land acquisition/write-downs, matching). Rivkin has found that successful Joint Development projects have a formal interagency mechanism to coordinate or direct the process (1977, 35). Local government must also be involved to provide pol i t ical support (elected of f i c ia l s have broad discretionary powers and are directly responsible to the publ ic) , and because they have broader mandates, various fiscal resources and can control land use (Rivkin, 1977, 36). 2.7 Summary U t i l i t i e s , due to their organizational structure and their land requirements, have not been well integrated into the urban land use planning process. The provision of basic health related services such as water lines and storm and sanitary sewers have tradit ional ly been the responsibility of local government. The other services have evolved from private inventions - 24 -and have often been provided by investor owned companies. These f a c i l i t i e s are natural monopolies and are regulated by government to insure rates and profits are controlled. All of these private and public companies and agencies have various objectives and mandates that make coordination of planning efforts d i f f i c u l t . In addition, the land requirements for these f a c i l i t i e s ( i . e . , long narrow continuous easements, are unlike other land uses spatial requirements. To compensate, many jurisdictions adopted u t i l i t y accommodation policies which formalized the placement of u t i l i t i e s within road rights-of-way. Joint Development involves combining a transportation fac i l i t y with ancil lary land uses such as rest areas or unrelated land uses, including residential , industrial or recreational developments. Joint Development was promoted as a means to obtain support for transportation developments and as a means to mitigate the adverse effects of the transportation fac i l i ty on the community. Joint Development had few technical problems but did experience problems in land assembly and with agency coordination. An institutional structure that will work in al l Joint Development situations has not yet been found. The u t i l i t y accommodation experience demonstrates that different f a c i l i t i e s can be placed in close proximity and result in few technical incompatibil i t ies . The Joint Development concept helped to promote the view that the lands for transportation f a c i l i t i e s could accommodate other land uses and that l inking other land uses would be a means to mitigate the adverse impacts from transportation f a c i l i t i e s . - 25 -The Corridor concept was derived from these ideas. Where urban road rights-of-way accommodated small scale distribution u t i l i t i e s , the major freeways and highways were seen as an opportunity to locate large transmission scale f a c i l i t i e s . The Corridor concept advocates the coordination of transportation and/or u t i l i t y f a c i l i t i e s to reduce the adverse environmental, economic and social impacts of a l l rights-of-way on the community. The next chapter provides a discussion of the Corridor concept and outlines the benefits, costs and implementation problems associated with the concept. - 26 -CHAPTER THREE FACILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY FACTORS In order to understand the benefits associated with the Corridor concept, the linear f a c i l i t y right-of-way requirements, right-of-way act iv i t ies and impacts, location parameters and compatibility problems must be examined. The f a c i l i t i e s to be examined include highways, railways, oil and gas pipelines, powerlines and communication c i rcu i t s . 3.1 Right-of-Way Cr i ter ia The transportation agencies and u t i l i t y companies have identified the single right-of-way as the best location for their f a c i l i t i e s . An individual right-of-way maximizes fac i l i t y integrity and safety and usually represents the least cost route. The determination of a right-of-way involves identifying a suitable location and width. Location The basis for identifying a suitable right-of-way route depends upon the system requirements. The fac i l i t y or ig in , destination and intermediate service points set the broad location requirements (U .S .D . I . , 1975, VII-2). Once the general route is determined, a detailed analysis is undertaken to identify alternative routes. The selection of alternative routes involves the consideration of these factors: - engineering requirements (standards, codes) - topography (grade) - bodies of water - geology (depth to bedrock, geologic hazards) - 27 -- soil condition (erodability, bearing capacity) - land use and ownership - envi ronmental - existing and proposed f a c i l i t i e s - r e l i a b i l i t y - economics ( U . S . D . I . , 1975, VI1-3). Each type of f a c i l i t y examines these factors but have different weightings (e .g . , railways have severe grade restrictions which makes topography a significant routing factor, whereas powerlines can span valleys and be built on nearly 90° slopes which makes topography of less concern). The major factors for each f a c i l i t y are noted on Table 1. Width The U.S.D.I . indicated that: The width of a right-of-way for any system is dependent on several factors, including construction, operation, maintenance and technical requirements; projected system expansion needs; access; and legal control (1975, VI1-9). Each type of f a c i l i t y has different width requirements as noted below. Pipelines The width of right-of-way for pipeline construction is a function of pipe diameter and soil conditions (U .S .D . I . , 1975, VI1-12)- When a pipeline is constructed, the right-of-way is i n i t i a l l y cleared and level led, topsoil is stockpiled and the ditch dug, the pipe is assembled and lowered into placed and buried, the topsoil replaced and the right-of-way revegetated. - 28 -TABLE 1 Fac i l i ty Location Factors Powerl ine* Pipeline* Highway Railway Engineering Requirements Major Ma j o r Major Major Topography Mi nor Mi nor Major Major Bodies of Water Mi nor Mi nor Major Major Geology Mi nor Major Major Major Soil Condition Mi nor Major Major Major Land Use and Ownership Major Major Major Major Envi ronmental Major Major Major Major Existing/Proposed Systems Major Major Mi nor Mi nor Re l iab i l i ty Ma j o r Mi nor Minor Mi nor Economics Major Major Major Major * Communication f a c i l i t i e s would be similar to pipelines i f buried cable or to powerlines i f above ground l ine . Source: Adapted from Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs. Environment and Engineering Powerl ine - Pipeline - Highway -Railway. Vol . 6 Appendix of Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study, 1973, Figure 3 Matrix - Physical Location Control Parameters, page 30-31. Table 2 indicates typical pipeline right-of-way widths. Approximately half the right-of-way space is needed for operation and maintenance (Howlett, 1984, 151). - 29 -TABLE 2 Typical Pipeline Easement Requirements Pipeline Size Temporary Construction Permanent Width (Diameter) Width (Level Terrain) (Operations & Maint.) 6-14 inch 50 feet 30 feet 16-24 inch 70 feet 40-50 feet 26-36 inch 80 feet 50-60 feet 40-42 inch 90 feet 75 feet > 42 inch 100 feet 75 feet Source: Ralph H. Sandmeyer, " U t i l i t y Corridors for Pipeline Construction", in Pipelines in Adverse Environments I I . (New York: American Society of C i v i l Engineers, 1983); 420-430. The preference for a pipeline alignment is a straight line or the shortest route (Howlett, 1984, 151). There are a few physical constraints to routing a pipeline such as steep and unstable slopes, rocky or poorly drained s o i l s (Howlett, 1984, 151; Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1973, 36). Maintenance access for pipelines i f provided by the right-of-way. Power!ines The right-of-way for poweMines is a function of the voltage, the number of c i r c u i t s , regulated clearance distances and maintenance access (Steinmaus, 1984, 141). Powerlines follow a similar construction sequence to pipelines. The right-of-way i s cleared and l e v e l l e d , tower footings poured, towers erected and conductors strung and the right-of-way revegetated. Table 3 shows examples of powerline right-of-way requirements. Powerline planners also prefer shortest routes to reduce costs. There are few physical limitations to powerline routing. Maintenance access i s provided by the right-of-way. - 30 -TABLE 3 Typical Powerline Rights-of-Way Line Voltage 115/138 (AC) 230 (AC) 345 (AC) 500 (AC) 765 (AC) +400 (DC) Typical ROW Widths (ft) 90-150 100-150 150-170 135-200 26 0- 280 104-150 Source: J . Michael Steinmaus, "Siting Considerations: Multiple-Use Verus Single-Use Rights-of-Way", in Proceedings of the Third  International Symposium on Enyironmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way  Management (n.p.: Mississippi State University, 1984), Table 1, 142. Hi ghways The right-of-way requirements for highways vary depending upon the design speed, maximum grade, sight distance, number of lanes, cut and f i l l requirements, frontage roads, width of shoulders and median and border areas (U .S .D . I . , 1975, VI1-14). Standards for specific types of highways have been set. Table 4 indicates the variation in the right-of-way widths for a 4 lane highway. A road alignment is designed to access the locations that generate tra f f i c volumes for the fac i l i t y and, therefore, is limited in its routing alternatives. Maintenance access is provided by the fac i l i t y i t s e l f . Railways The right-of-way width for railways depends on the area required for cut and f i l l , communication, signal and power f a c i l i t i e s , service roads, drainage and the roadbed (U.S .D. I . , 1975, VI1-17). Typical ly , a 100 foot right-of-way would be adequate on level terrain (U.S .D.I . , 1975, VI1-17). The railway alignment has major grade and curve l imitations. The maximum grade is 1 to - 31 -TABLE 4 Typical Highway Right-of-Way Width (Feet) Type of Highway Lane Shoulder Median Border Area Total 4 Lane - Restricted 4 Lane - Intermediate 4 Lane - Desirable 12 12 12 8-10 10 10-12 4-15 20 60 12-15 25-40 50-80 90-110 140-180 210-310 Source: U . S . D . I . , The Need for a National System of Transportation and  U t i l i t y Corridors, (Washington, D.C. : U . S . D . I . , 1975), Table VII-1, VI1-16. 1.5% on level terrain and 2.2% in mountainous terrain (The Aerospace Corporation, 1975, 21). This generally results in meandering in rough topography. Maintenance access is provided by the fac i l i ty and service roads. Communication Systems These systems can be located above ground on poles or buried. The construction act ivi t ies for these systems will be similar to powerlines for above ground systems, and to pipelines for buried cables. Construction right-of-way can vary from 25 - 100 feet, with only 16 - 50 feet required for operation (The Aerospace Corporation, 1975, 27). Reliability Rel iabi l i ty is the continued avai labi l i ty of service (The Aerospace Corporation, 1975, 29). The consequences of system disruption vary from mere inconvenience to total system fai lures . The f a c i l i t i e s related to trans-portation of people or materials general result in inconveniences. Vehicular t ra f f i c can be rerouted, rai l service delayed and pipeline products obtained - 32 -from storage f a c i l i t i e s . Power and communication f a c i l i t i e s , i f disrupted, can result in the loss of the system for large areas. Rel iabi l i ty for a l l of these f a c i l i t i e s is based on: soundness of the system design, safety factors for variations in the load, abi l i ty to handle abnormal occurrences, the applied preventative maintenance and the adherence to sound operational or control procedures (The Aerospace Corporation, 1975, 30). The re l i ab i l i t y requirements of these systems often influences the location and width of rights-of-way. 3.2 F a c i l i t y Impacts Powerlines, pipelines, highways, railway and communication f a c i l i t i e s result in varying impacts during and after construction. Powerlines and above ground communication fac i l t i es rights-of-way can result in soil erosion, loss of forest resources and wildl ife habitat, increased costs of farming (Hanus, 1979) and visual impacts. The fac i l i t y can cause electrical effects that interfere with adjacent communication f a c i l i t i e s and cause shock hazard on adjacent metallic f a c i l i t i e s . Pipeline and buried communication f a c i l i t i e s rights-of-way can result in soil erosion and the permanent loss of forest resources but have only short term impacts on wildl i fe habitat and agricultural productivity. The major impact of pipelines relates to the environmental consequences of spi l l s (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, 1981, 17). The construction of a highway results in the total replacement of the environment with a paved surface. Traffic on the fac i l i t y poses a significant hazard to wildl i fe and the noise and exhaust pollution can degrade the quality of the environment. - 33 -As with highways, the construction of a railway results in a permanent impact on the environment. Trains take a to l l on wildl i fe as well . 3.3 F a c i l i t y Compat ib i l i t y Al l of the f a c i l i t i e s have varying degrees of compatibility. All of the f a c i l i t i e s can be placed in close proximity but problems increase as the separation distance decreases and length of parallel increases (U.S .D.I . , 1975, IX-4). Powerlines pose the greatest problems for adjacent pipelines, railways and communication f a c i l i t i e s . Powerlines can induce voltages on adjacent metallic objects through conductance ( i . e . , accidental ground contact or ground faul ts ) , capacitance ( i . e . , electrostatic voltage - an electric f ie ld is induced) and electrostatic and electromagnetic induction (Puschel, 1973, 28-32; Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, 1981; Dabkowski, 1981, 88-102; Blasingame, 1979, 39-50; Bridges, 1981, 103-109). These effects can puncture the adjacent surfaces and result in a shock hazard to construction personnel . These effects can be mitigated by increasing and maintaining a separation distance, pipeline and equipment grounding, special construction techniques and cathodic protection (Blasingame, 1979, 39-50; Dabkowski, 1981, 88-102). Pipelines present a problem for adjacent f a c i l i t i e s only i f ruptured. Material can create a hazard to users of the highway or rail l ine , depending upon the product created a toxic hazard to humans and wi ld l i fe ; and cause explosions or present a f ire hazard (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, 1981, 17). Highways and railways can pose problems for adjacent pipelines, power-lines and communication f a c i l i t i e s by vehicle accidents or train derailments, - 34 -which damage above surface structures (Robertson, 1975, 4-10). Table 5 shows the interaction between the various f a c i l i t i e s . 3.4 Conclusion There are marked differences in the right-of-way location cr i ter ia and width requirements between the various f a c i l i t i e s . The route selection process for these f a c i l i t i e s requires the identification of specific projects to allow for the environmental and economic evaluation of alternatives. The f a c i l i t i e s have varying degrees of compatibility but incompati-b i l i t i e s can be overcome through f a c i l i t y separation or special mitigation devices. ^ • s . Affected System? Influen cing^s. System Electrical Transmission Communications Pipelines Railroads Highways Electrical Transmission Reliability de -graded . Safety during maintenance from voltage gra-dient. Steady s t a t 2 noise. Fault L lightning damage. Shock hazard. Corrosion of cable sheath. Construction damage. Corrosion. Shock hazard. Fire/explo-sion hazard. Con-struction damage. Shock hazard. False control signals. Fire hazard. Com-munications inter-ference. Radio noise. Audible noise. F i r e hazard. Shock hazard. Communications Faults during construction. Crosstalk. Cathodic protec-tion interaction. Construction damage. Cathodic pro-tection interac-tion. Construction damage. Construction damage. Access interference. Pipelines Faults during construction. Fire/explosion hazard. Cathodic protec-tion interaction. Fuel leak damage/ personnel safety. Construction damage. Cathodic pro-tection interac -tion. Fuel leak/fire and explosion hazard. Construction damage. Fire/explosion hazard. . Access inter-ference. F i r e / explosion safety hazard. Railroads Derailment caused outage -reliability degraded. Electrified RR's same problem as power. Derailment dam-age to repeater stations or above ground facilities. Electrified RR's same problem as power. Dera i l -ment damage to valves, com-pressor or pump-ing stations, etc Reliability degraded due to possible acci-dent. Safety degraded. Safety degraded due to potential accidents. Access inter-ference. Highways Reliability de-graded due to accident related outages. Damage to re-peate r station or above ground facilities due to vehicle accident. Vehicle damage to above ground facilities due to accident. Reliability degraded due to possible accident. Safety degraded Safety degraded due to potential accidents. Access inter-ference. TABLE 5 - FACILITY COMPATIBILITY Source: U.S.D.I., The Need f o r a National System o f Trans p o r t a t i o n and U t i l i t y C o r r i d o r s (Washington, D.C.: U.S.D.I., 1975): IV -22, Figure IV - 2 . - 36 -CHAPTER FOUR THE CORRIDOR CONCEPT The transportation and u t i l i t y Corridor is simply a special case of Joint Development that involves primarily linear f a c i l i t i e s such as roads, railways, pipelines, powerlines, communication c ircuits and municipal services (e .g . , water l ines , sanitary and storm sewer, natural gas distribution l ines) . In this chapter, the concept will be defined, the advantages, disadvantages and implementation problems ident i f ied. The case wil l be made that Corridors provide net benefits to the community in the long term. Factors which inhibit Corridor development will also be identi f ied. 4.1 Definitions The term "Corridor" has three basic uses in the transportation and u t i l i t y l i terature . One use of the term is as a synonym for the term right-of-way. In this s ituation, every single f a c i l i t y right-of-way or paralleling rights-of-way is called a Corridor. This is a misuse of the term and is misleading. A,second use of the term relates to the linear fac i l i ty route selection process. One stage in the process involves the review of route alternatives at the regional l eve l . This is undertaken using Corridors or: . . .wide, elongated land areas that are selected based on broad resource capabi l i t ies , uses and potential impacts (E.N.R. , 1980, 7). A broad band between the f a c i l i t i e s origin and destination that has the potential to provide for a right-of-way is established. This band is then subject to a detail route selection evaluation and the alternative route alignments identif ied. Figure 1 i l lustrates a route selection Corridor. The - 37 -FIGURE I - ROUTE SELECTION CORRIDOR Source: Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, The Route Selection Process (Edmonton: Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, 1980): 2~, Figure 1. - 38 -term "planning corridor" is related to this use of the term but instead of being tied to a specific route selection process, i t relates to the establishment of areas suitable for future rights-of-way within U.S. public lands (United States Department of the Interior (U.S .D.I . ) , 1975, IV-1). The third use of the term relates to the u t i l i t y Corridor. In this case, a Corridor refers to a strip of land that has been set aside through legis lat ive or other means for the purpose of accommodating future linear f a c i l i t i e s . The land within the Corridor is allocated to specific types of l inear f a c i l i t i e s in a manner that reduces incompatibility. The U.S.D.I . refers to Corridors which have these functions as joint-use Corridors and defines them to be: . . . a narrow strip of land with restricted boundaries to which f a c i l i t i e s of the same or different systems are placed adjacent to each other in as close proximity as practical and feasible (1975, IV-2). Elder specifies that a u t i l i t y Corridor is: . . . a right of way (sic) designed for the shared use of more than one type of u t i l i t y , such as, electric power, telecommunication, pipelines for gas and o i l , rai ls and even highways (1981, 2). A Corridor is an expansion of u t i l i t y accommodation in urban arterial s. When a road right-of-way plan is registered, i t eliminates the legal parcel plans that existed prior to the road plan. Normally, a u t i l i t y is granted an easement or purchases the land for its right-of-way but when the fac i l i ty is within a road right-of-way a permit is issued. Although physically one right-of-way l ies within another, legally only one right-of-way exists. This is the same situation with a large u t i l i t y right-of-way, such as a powerline right-of-way when the u t i l i t y permits another fac i l i ty on its land. This type of situation is often referred to as shared right-of-way or multiple use - 39 -of rights-of-way. This i s a limited application of the Corridor concept, as th i s shared use was not i n i t i a l l y anticipated or designed f o r , and the rights granted to the other users are re s t r i c t e d . Within a transportation and u t i l i t y Corridor, land for future needs i s projected and the land i s allocated to specific f a c i l i t y types. When needed, an easement is granted to the user for a right-of-way. The width of the f a c i l i t y rights-of-way are reduced to only the width required for f a c i l i t y operation. Figure 2 i l l u s t r a t e s the land allocation for a Corridor with powerlines, a highway and pipelines. Two Sino/e Circuit Butler Four Lone Divided Butler Ga» Oil Powerlines FIGURE 2 - CORRIDOR LAND ALLOCATION Source: Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group, Athabasca Tar Sands,  Corridor Study, Corridor Concept, Vol. 1, Part 1. (Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1974): 3d. - 40 -There are variations to the land allocation depending upon the types of f a c i l i t i e s to be accommodated. Corridors can be single or multiple purpose. A transportation and u t i l i t y Corridor by definition would have a transportation component and at least one u t i l i ty component. A single purpose Corridor would set land aside for the future rights-of-way of only one type of fac i l i t y (e .g . , a powerline Corridor). A variation of the transportation and u t i l i t y Corridor is the penetrator or window Corridor. These are short strips that pass through a constraint area such as a metropolitan area or an environmentally sensitive area. These Corridors provide access through problem areas (Hayward, 1980, 2; Stewart, Weir & C o . , 1983, 4). 4.2 Corridor Purpose A Corridor is established to eff ic iently and in a well planned manner preserve future right-of-way access. This in turn allows for the mitigation of the soc ia l , environmental and fiscal impacts associated with right-of-way development. Few u t i l i t y companies have preserved right-of-way for future fac i l i ty requirements. This is due to the fact that the companies are not responsible for the approval of right-of-way alignments, have limited expropriation powers, must acquire the land by purchase and have limited funding for long term projects. Although u t i l i t y companies that propose a fac i l i t y identify a number of alternative routes, the actual determination of the permitted route is by the appropriate regulatory agency (e .g . , in Alberta the Energy Resources Conservation Board (E.R.C.B.) is the agency that issues permits for u t i l i t y - 41 -rights-of-way). The regulatory agency does not necessarily approve the companies preferred route and can request route alternatives. There i s , therefore, no certainty in the prediction of right-of-way alignments for short term projects, and this uncertainty is vastly increased for projects that are proposed in the future. Should the company acquire their projected right-of-way, there is no guarantee that i t will be required as supply and demand factors can change. Furthermore, when the alignment is required, adjacent land use developments may have rendered i t unusable. When a company has received permission to construct a f a c i l i t y , they can invoke their expropriation powers to acquire a right-of-way from landowners that have not granted easements and enter the property to construct the f a c i l i t y . This power ensures that there are no holdouts to render an almost completely purchased right-of-way useless. However, i f a company is simply acquiring land for the future, they can only rely upon negotiation with the landowners and thus may not be able to acquire a l l the land required. The lands not acquired could be developed for other purposes and this would impair the use of the right-of-way. There has been significant progress in the reduction of the impacts imposed by rights-of-way on adjacent lands but these f a c i l i t i e s continue to impose significant environmental, social and fiscal impacts. It can be argued that a right-of-way imposes limited impacts but the concern is for the cumulative impacts imposed by many rights-of-way. The regulatory agencies monitor and enforce good construction and operation practices on every f a c i l i t y but there are many of these f a c i l i t i e s which affect the landscape. The number of f a c i l i t i e s cannot be arbi trar i ly limited i . e . , the existing f a c i l i t i e s cannot provide additional service. In order to mitigate the - 42 -cumulative impacts, there must be control over the location of new f a c i l i t i e s . Figure 3 shows an area of south Edmonton that has been severely impacted by pipelines. The subdivision design for these areas had to incorporate the pipeline rights-of-way and avoid placing structures on these areas. 4.3 Benefits of Corridors A review of the l i terature indicates that there are a number of environmental, soc ia l , fiscal and operational benefits that can be derived from the establishment of Corridors. These benefits accrue to the potential user and/or the community. Reduced Land Requirements Corridors, while preserving future right-of-way access also reduce the total land requirements for these f a c i l i t i e s . More f a c i l i t i e s can be built on less space in a Corridor than i f single rights-of-way are used. Corridors can reduce the total right-of-way requirements by providing working space for a l l the users; by providing a construction operation and maintenance vehicle access by providing the physical separation from adjacent land use ac t iv i ty , and by providing for future expansion. These are the major factors which require the right-of-way width be larger than necessary for fac i l i ty operation (U .S .D . I . , 1975, VI1-9). Table 6 i l lustrates estimated land savings of shared rights-of-way. FIGURE 3 - PIPELINES IN SOUTH EDMONTON Source: Main Pipelines - Edmonton Area, Energy Resources Conservation Board, August, 1985. - 44 -TABLE 6 Example of Right-of-Way Savings Shared Separate % 1) Single Circuit 500 kV (SCT/L) 64 m 2-500 kV 118 m 128 m 8 3-500 kV 172 m 192 m 11 2) Double Circuit 500 kV (DCT/L) 52 m i 1 DCT/L + 1 SCT/L 121 m1 116 m1 3) 1-Gas Pipeline (GPL) 20 m 2-Gas Pipelines 30 m 40 m 33 3-Gas Pipelines 40 m 60 m 50 4) 1-Oil Pipeline (OPL) 20 m 2-0il Pipelines 20 m 40 m 100 5) 1 GPL + 1 OPL + GPL 30 m 60 m 100 6) 1 SCT/L + 1 GPL (Guyed Towers) 69 m2 84 m 18 7) 1 SCT/L + 1 OPL (Guyed Towers) 69 m2 84 m 18 Note: 1. Based upon fa l l ing tower clearances. 2. Based upon 10 m separation from guy anchors in flat t erra in . Source: Ian Hayward, Common Corridors, (n .p . , 1982), Table 8.1, 27. Depending upon the length of the rights-of-way, these width reductions can result in major land savings. For example, the smallest saving indicated on Table 6 is 10 m for 2-500 kV powerlines. This reduction results in 1 hectare per kilometre not required for rights-of-way. Alberta has 97,000 miles of powerlines and 112,000 miles of o i l , gas and other pipelines (Environment Council of Alberta, 1982, 1). Some of these lines could have been e l ig ible for these reductions, which could have reduced in the impact on the land base. - 45 -This right-of-way reduction results in lower right-of-way costs for the users and benefits the community by reducing the amount of land affected by rights-of-way (e.g. less loss of habitat, sensitive environmental areas and forest, mineral and agricultural resources). Reduced Clearing of Land A consequence of the reduction of land requirements is a reduction in the amount of land that must be cleared (Steinmaus, 1984, 143). In order to construct the transportation and u t i l i t y f a c i l i t i e s , the right-of-way must be cleared of vegetation and level led. The right-of-way for the transportation f a c i l i t i e s is surfaced and vegetation is eliminated. The right-of-way for u t i l i t y f a c i l i t i e s is disturbed during construction but is almost entirely reclaimed and limited forms of vegetation promoted. These areas are susceptible to erosion before reclamation and in the long term, i f erosion control is not provided. Usually the natural vegetation cannot return, as i t would interfere with the f a c i l i t y (e .g . , tree roots disturbing pipelines or tree branches bringing down powerlines). This can have a long term impact in a forest area but does not usually have a long term impact on agricultural lands, as the crops can continue to be grown. A reduction in the amount of clearing reduces the construction costs for the user and benefits the community by reducing the loss of native habitat, agricultural and forestry resources and reducing the potential for soil erosion. Reduced Right-of-Way Proliferation The impact of one right-of-way on one parcel may be small but the cumulative impact i f many rights-of-way on many parcels can be large. Corridors direct f a c i l i t i e s into a defined alignment that is located to - 46 -minimize the impact on c r i t i c a l wi ldl i fe and fisheries habitat, environment-a l ly sensitive areas, major forestry and mineral resources and cultural or manmade features. A Corridor limits the number of parcels that are affected by right-of-way routing (Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group, Vol . 1, Part 1, 1974, 13). The benefits of bringing f a c i l i t i e s together in one location accrue to the community, as fewer parcels or areas are affected by rights-of-way. Reduced Fragmentation of Land Corridors, by controlling the location of rights-of-way, reduce land fragmentation (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, 1980, 26, Allman, 1983, 218, Environment Council of Alberta, 1982, 33). Transportation f a c i l i t i e s physically remove land from alternative use and often create slivers of undevelopable land within the existing pattern of parcels. While powerlines and pipelines do not physically remove the land within the right-of-way from alternative use, they greatly restrict the types of use that can be made of the right-of-way surface and the adjacent lands. Powerlines create problems for farming by requiring special machinery handling in the vicinity of the towers and the conductor (Hanus, 1979). Both powerline and pipeline rights-of-way restrict the construction of buildings and, in some cases, regulations require a development setback from these f a c i l i t i e s . These f a c i l i t i e s often bisect parcels ( i . e . , due to the fact that the shortest distance is a straight l ine , often on the diagonal) and must be designed around, in order to develop the property. A Corridor, i f designed to follow the parcel pattern, can reduce the fragmentation and allow for the ful l ut i l i zat ion of adjacent lands. - 47 -The benefits of reduced land fragmentation that accrue to the community includes maintenance of the land development potential of the land base, lower land development costs due to ease of design, the ful l use of land and fewer right-of-way relocations. Reduced Community Disruption As mentioned previously, the public opposition to road rights-of-way often stems from the fact that they bisect existing communities, resulting in the removal of structures and the relocation of businesses and residences (Lea, 1969, 38). In newly developing areas, a preplanned Corridor that provides space for future transportation and u t i l i t y f a c i l i t i e s will ensure that, in the future, neighbourhoods can be designed around these f a c i l i t i e s . Therefore, the likelihood of future neighbourhood disruption is reduced. The Corridor can be used to separate incompatible land uses or serve as a community boundary (Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group, Vol . 1, Part 1, 1974, 13). The community benefits by not having to deal with the social and fiscal impacts of relocation, and preserving viable neighbourhood structure. The future user benefits by having lower right-of-way costs, as there is undeveloped land set aside for this purpose. Reduced Land Acquisition Costs A reduction in total right-of-way width for a Corridor results in a reduction in the amount of land that must be acquired, which reduces the costs of land acquisit ion. If the Corridor is under the control of one agency and i t is solely responsible for land acquisition, even greater savings can result (Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group, 1974, 15). Rather than repeatedly approaching a landowner for individual rights-of-way, - 48 -the agency can approach the owner once and acquire the entire land requirements. This is more efficient use of agency personnel, reducing the number of meetings and the negotiation effort. In addition, i t reduces the total land cost as the landowner, i f not bought out, would l ikely require higher easement payments as the rights-of-way affected more of the parcel . Approvals Expedited It can take many years for a major road or u t i l i t y service to be constructed and put into operation. Much of the time is allotted to the approval process. A Corridor can reduce the approval time by reducing the time required to identify and evaluate a viable route by reducing the number of routing alternatives that must be reviewed, and by reducing the time spent on reviewing public interventions (Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group, Vo l . 1, Part 1, 1974, 15). A Corridor is only established where there are viable routes and there is no need to consider alternatives as the component areas are defined. If the Corridor is established with public support, there is l ikely to be few interventions for Corridor alignments. This reduces the project costs to the user and reduces the community funds required to administer the approval process. Route Preservation There are a number of laws, policies and regulations that have been established to protect resources, such as cr i t i ca l habitat areas, wilderness areas, environmentally sensitive areas, historic resources and scenic rivers. These areas, in addition to settlements, agricultural areas, forest manage-ment areas and mineral extraction areas limit the areas suitable for rights-of-way. In metropolitan areas, urban growth and i n f i l l i n g of development is constraining access to the areas. Corridors will prevent the "close-out" of - 49 -suitable routes (Western U t i l i t y Group, 1986, 3, Allman, 1983, 219). The preservation of routes allows for the continued establishment of rights-of-way to meet the existing and future needs of society. Fac i l i ty Integrity Prohibited A Corridor provides a large separation of f a c i l i t i e s from potentially damaging act ivit ies on adjacent lands. Often actions such as sewerline construction on adjacent lands results in damage to the f a c i l i t i e s (e .g . , a pipeline is h i t ) . This is termed third party damage. Third party damage is one of the major reasons for pipeline fai lures . In addition, i t is easier to identify and avoid a group of well marked f a c i l i t i e s . A Corridor, therefore, reduces the l ikl ihood of third party damage (Allman, 1983, 219). This reduces the risk to the community of fac i l i ty facilure and the costs of damage control to the user. Reduced Surveillance Costs Each f a c i l i t y has a dai ly , weekly or monthly surveillance program. The right-of-way is walked, driven or flown to determine i f there are any problems with the fac i l i t y or i f there are act ivi t ies or situations, such as construction or ongoing erosion on adjacent lands which threatens the f a c i l i t y . The grouping of f a c i l i t i e s allows for a common inspection and surveillance of the f a c i l i t i e s . This reduces the operating costs for a l l of the users. Corridor benefits for users tend to lower the costs of constructing or operating the f a c i l i t y . The benefits to the community focus on preserving the land and resource base; protecting the environment and the opportunities for alternative land use development, and lowering the social impacts of the linear f a c i l i t i e s . - 50 -4.4 Costs and Disadvantages of Corridors The establishment of a Corridor while providing a number of benefits also presents a number of disadvantages to the user and costs to the community. Concentrated Impacts The combining of a number of f a c i l i t i e s within a Corridor results in significant impacts to the environment within the Corridor boundaries (Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group, 1974, 15; Hayward, 1982, 19; Ontario M . T . C . , 1978, 5). The frequent surface disturbances, the land clearing, the soil compaction, the construction activity and the reclamation act iv i t ies a l l result in the replacement of the existing wildl i fe and vegetation. Rather than dispersed over many landscapes, these impacts are confined to the Corridor. If not carefully located, a Corridor would result in the loss of sensitive environmental areas, c r i t i c a l wildl i fe areas and resource reserves to the community. Community Barriers One of the arguments against freeways is that they create a barrier to movement. A Corridor with a width much greater than a road right-of-way can create a bigger barrier to cross movement (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, 1980, 27). Furthermore, the width can result in greater u t i l i t y crossing costs, as a longer distance must be covered that do not generate revenue from service connections. Higher Construction Costs Fac i l i t i e s in a Corridor can be subject to higher construction costs due to mitigation requirements, longer route length and special construction practices. Electric transmission lines can present a hazard to metallic - 51 -surfaces, equipment and personnel adjacent to the f a c i l i t y (U .S .D. I . , 1975, IV-21; Blasingame, 1979, 39; Howlett, 1984, 151; Puschel , 1973, 28-32; Robertson, 1975, 4-10, 4-13; Robinson, 1974, 27). Mitigation is normally achieved by increasing the separation distance. In a Corridor mitigation, devices such as shields and ground and special construction procedures are required, which increase construction costs. Al l of the linear f a c i l i t i e s have varying location c r i t e r i a , such as grade and curve constraints. In order to locate a Corridor, the fac i l i ty with the most restrict ive location cr i t er ia will fix the alignment as al l other users can follow this route (Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group, Vo l . 1, Part 1, 1975, 11; Ontrio M . T . C . , 1978, 6). This generally results in the other users following a much longer route than their lowest cost alternative (Hayward, 1982, 5; Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, 1980, 26). A compromise route results in an increased route length for the f a c i l i t i e s . The Aerospace Corporation (1975) estimated the following construction costs: 4 lane divided highway $1.5 - $2.0 mill ion/mile 2 track railroad $500,000 - $700,000/mile 1 - 42" pipeline $318,000/mile 1 - 500 kV powerline $220,000/mile An increase in length can signif icantly increase the total f ac i l i t y construction cost. In addition, construction of new f a c i l i t i e s near an existing instal lat ion requires special procedures to avoid damaging the f a c i l i t y . Construction activity can take place over, beside or under an existing - 52 -f a c i l i t y . Special procedures are required to protect the existing f a c i l i t i e s from damage (U .S .D . I . , 1975, IV-32). Higher Energy Requirements A consequence of greater length is an increase in energy use. If a roadway or railway has increased length, this will require the vehicles travel l ing the route to use additional energy. Powerlines lose energy over distance, thus the greater the distance the greater loss. Pipelines under pressure will require more pressure i f the distance is increased (Klohn, 1981, 115; Hayward, 1982, 19). High C o r r i d o r A c q u i s i t i o n Costs The land for the Corridor must be acquired to increase land use control (Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group, 1974, 15). This requires large capital funding to assemble the land which are d i f f i cu l t to raise (Weir, 1984, 125; Lea, 1969, C - l ) . These lands must be retained for the l i fe of the f a c i l i t i e s . It is argued that there are economic benefits of buying land well in advance of need (Lea, 1969, 43). Goldberg (1980, 1978, 1978a) has determined that there are no ecomomic savings derived from the early purchase of the land. Therefore, Corridors require large capital budget that are d i f f i c u l t to raise and there is no economic benefits to acquiring the land before i t is needed and holding the land. Reduced R e l i a b i l i t y Rel iabi l i ty of a system can be reduced by locating f a c i l i t i e s in close proximity or by clustering similar f a c i l i t i e s (Steinmaus, 1984, 144; U . S . D . I . , 1975, IV-34). The continual construction of f a c i l i t i e s near existing f a c i l i t i e s can increase the likelihood of third party damage. The clustering of similar f a c i l i t i e s may also result in a total system failure - 53 -from one action, such as storm or an explosion. A system is designed with separation to insure that the service will be maintained. Increased Risk A single right-of-way provides a l inear fac i l i ty with a safe location. The fac i l i t y is further protected by the frequent surveillance by trained personnel that are able to recognize problems with the equipment or external threats to the system. In a corridor with a common inspection or surveillance program, the inspectors must be able to recognize problems with the equipment of a l l the various f a c i l i t i e s and external threats to al l of the various systems. The fai lure of one fac i l i ty is more l ikely to affect adjacent f a c i l i t i e s due to the reduced separation distance. To reduce the r i sk , special construction material and techniques are necessary i . e . , thicker pipe walls, greater depth of bur ia l . This increased level of risk may affect the determination of the level and cost of l i a b i l i t y insurance for the various f a c i l i t i e s . Increased Vulnerability The clustering of f a c i l i t i e s may result in a multiple failure as a •result of one system accident or from natural disasters or subversive actions (Athabasca Tar Sands Study Group, 1974, 15; U . S . D . I . , 1975, IV-36; Hayward, 1982, 19; Alberta Energy and Natural Resourcs, 1980, 27; Ontario M . T . C . , 1978, 6). As with system r e l i a b i l i t y , the greater the separation, the more d i f f i c u l t to bring down a l l of the f a c i l i t i e s . Expansion Restrictions The clustering of f a c i l i t i e s in a Corridor can result in the inabil i ty to expand a particular fac i l i ty (Ontario M . T . C . , 1978, 7; Williams, 1980, 21). This is especially true for transportation f a c i l i t i e s that are often - 54 -improved by lane or track additions. Should these improvements be necessary, d i f f i cu l t and costly relocations of existing f a c i l i t i e s would be required. Di f f icu l ty in Determining Location and Width of Corridor As discussed in Section 3.1, a fac i l i t y right-of-way route and width depends upon the system needs ( i . e . , origin and destination) and the specific project characteristics ( i . e . , voltage, tower structure, pipeline diameter). In order to locate a Corridor and to establish a Corridor width, the future users must be identi f ied. The Corridor location depends upon the coincidence of fac i l i ty origins and the destinations and the different location parameters. The Corridor width is established by the total right-of-way need of the f a c i l i t i e s , plus the separation distance to mitigate incompatible f a c i l i t i e s and to meet r e l i a b i l i t y objectives. It is d i f f i cu l t to identify a general width for a Corridor that could apply in a l l situations (The Aerospace Corporation, 1975, 110). Therefore, prior to establishing a Corridor in any specific locale, a systematic evaluation should be performed ( i . e . , based on actual configurations of systems to be emplaced, sequence of possible construction, physical nature of terrain , etc.) to determine the interactions and the impacts of various Corridor widths on costs and safety to determine i f a Corridor is plausible or more or less desirable than other alternatives (The Aerospace Corporation, 1975, 112). Lack of Corridor Implementation Mechanism or Institutional Framework An extensive review of the l iterature on Corridors uncovered l i t t l e information regarding implementation. Corridors have been established by private companies, municipal or provincial agencies and by special purpose agencies. In Houston, Texas, the Exxon (formerly the Humble Oil Company) pipeline Corridor is a private sector Corridor that leases right-of-way space - 55 -to other companies (Elder, 1981, 5). In Ontario, Ontario Hydro allows other u t i l i t i e s and other surface uses to locate on the i r rights-of-way (Co l l i e , 1987, 1). In A lberta, the provincial 'Department of Environment i s responsible for two transportation and u t i l i t y Corridors. The l e g i s l a t i o n , regulation po l i c ie s and plans that affect right-of-way locat ion and the agencies and interests that would be involved in Corridors have been discussed in the l i t e r a t u r e (U.S.D.I., 1975, VIII—1, VI11-16). It has been noted that the successful etablishment of Corridors requires a coordinated e f fo r t involving a l l levels of governments, public and private u t i l i t i e s and the public (U.S.D.I., 1975, IV-16). There are no exist ing mechanisms to coordinate these agencies and in teres t s . Mermel has noted that the problem with Corridors is not technical issues but cooperation and coordination (1969, 59). Only one study proposed an implementation mechanism and i n s t i t u t i ona l s t ructure. The Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group concluded that Corridors could only be achieved by government l eg i s l a t i on and action (Vol. 1, Part 1, 1974, 35). The study group ident i f ied two implementation techniques: (A) Res t r i c t i ve zoning in the covering regulations and government inspection and approval serv ices . . . (B) A s ingle authority owning and managing the corr idor (Vol. 1, Part 1, 1974, 35). The single quasi-governmental authority would acquire, own, lease and manage the Corr idor. Most of the Corridor disadvantages relate to the costs incurred by the user of a Corr idor. These factors are evaluated to determine i f a Corridor alignment is feas ib le . However, the higher land acquis i t ion costs, the - 56 -di f f i cu l ty in locating a Corridor and determining the width of a Corridor, and the lack of an implementation mechanism or institution affects the establishment of Corridors. 4.5 Conclusion Corridors provide benefits and impose costs on the users and the community. The user can, when a project is identif ied, calculate the benefits and costs of a single right-of-way versus a Corridor alignment and determine the route with the highest net benefit. The determination of net benefit to the community is much more d i f f i cu l t and complex. The community, i f establishing the Corridor, is faced with the high capital cost of land acquisit ion, the costs of holding and administering the land and the lost opportunity costs of scarce public funds directed to this purpose. The community receives the benefit of land and resource preservation, which preserve the options for future generations. This is an intangible benefit whose value is hard to quantify but that has value far into the future. Future revenues can be generated to replace public funds through taxation and easement lease fees. The land resource is f ini te and cannot be readily replaced. In the long term, the benefits to be gained from Corridors wil l outweigh the disadvantages. - 57 -CHAPTER FIVE THE ALBERTA CORRIDOR PROGRAM In t h i s Chapter, the Alberta Corridor program w i l l be examined to determine the factors that lead to the establishment of the Corridors, to ident i f y the benefits and disadvantages result ing from the Corridors, and to ident i f y the i n s t i t u t i ona l framework for Corridor implementation and management. 5.1 The Program Beginnings In the early 1970's, the province was experiencing rapid development of conventional o i l and gas resources, due to the high world o i l prices established by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (O.P.E.C.). As w e l l , the province was promoting the development of heavy o i l sands in northern Alberta. Rapid industr ia l growth was expected, based on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of cheap energy. This was expected to d i ve r s i f y the Alberta economy from the t rad i t i ona l resource and agr iculture sectors. This petroleum resource and industr ia l development was projected to require a large number of pipel ines and powerlines. The metropolitan areas were experiencing rapid growth and the costs of land throughout the province were increasing quick ly. The province was receiving large resource revenues during th i s period. Richards noted that: Aggregate o i l revenues (comprising roya l t i e s , land sales, and rentals) increased from $516 mi l l i on in 1973 to $2.7 b i l l i o n in 1977, creating annual budget surpluses that have threatened to embarrass even the most acqu i s i t ive Alberta cabinet ministers (1979, 241). - 58 -There was growing concern over environmental issues in Alberta during this period. In 1971, an Alberta Department for the Environment was established. The Act provided for the establishment of a department to oversee environmental matters and outlined the department's responsibi l i t ies . A few months after the passage of this legis lat ion, the 25 year old Social Credit government was defeated and the Conservatives were elected. The Conservative government had a policy of balanced growth that discouraged additional development in the metropolitan areas but promoted the development in other regions. A major industrial area was located on the eastern edge of Edmonton and contained petroleum processing and terminal f a c i l i t i e s . In the early 1970's, attention focused on developing the oil sands in northeast Alberta near Fort McMurray. The province commissioned a study to determine i f a multiple purpose Corridor for linear f a c i l i t i e s associated with oil sands development was required and i f a Corridor was feasible. In addition, the consultants were to identify potential major and minor industrial sites to be related to the oil sands development. The Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study determined that a Corridor could be used by various linear f a c i l i t i e s , including pipelines and powerlines required to service the site and to move products to market. The study identified viable Corridor routes and a number of industrial sites outside the metropolitan area. Edmonton was to continue to provide a major terminal function for the oil sands development. In October, 1974, the provincial government endorsed the Corridor study. To protect the Corridor alignment, the province has placed a Corridor reservation on the Crown lands in northeast Alberta that comprise the alignment and has purchased some of the private lands. - 59 -On the eastern edge of Edmonton near the industrial area, a new settlement was developing. Sherwood Park was a small hamlet that had been created to act as a bedroom community for the City of Edmonton. The hamlet was experiencing rapid growth, as was Edmonton. The province was concerned that access to the industrial area could become blocked by future development of the hamlet. In addition, the province was concerned that the hamlet remain separated from potential pollution impacts from the i ndustries. To accomplish these purposes, the province, through the Department of the Environment Act, established a half mile wide Restricted Development Area (R.D.A.) approximately 4 1/2 miles long, the Sherwood Park West R.D.A. , along the eastern edge of the City (see Figure 4). Mr. Yurko, the Environment Minister that declared the R.D.A. , when questioned in the legislature as to why a half mile width was chosen, stated: One of the main considerations was cost. The other was, of course, considerations in regard to the effectiveness of a half-mile width in terms of separating industry from residential areas, as well as the fact that a half-mile is quite sufficient for the noise amelioration. A half-mile is quite useful for recreational purposes, as a u t i l i t y corridor and for several other reasons. (Alberta Hansard, October 31, 1974, 3391). The R.D.A. was to: provide for pipeline access to the industrial area; l imit the expansion of the industries; and to provide a green space to help mitigate pollution. The R.D.A. was eventually extended to completely c irc le the city to preserve the alignment of the Ring Road. Since the early 1950's, the province had proposed a Ring Road around the City of Edmonton. The proposed alignment had shifted over time and can be traced through a number of studies. - GO -FIGURE 4 - EDMONTON S SHERWOOD PARK WEST RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AREAS - 61 -In 1956, the Edmonton Distr ict Planning Commission (E .D .P .C . ) , a regional level planning agency, presented an alignment to the Department of Transport for consideration. L i t t l e action was taken and only one and a half miles of the right-of-way was acquired. By 1961, when the Metropolitan Edmonton Transportation Study (M.E.T.S.) was begun, the city had grown and, in places, development was fa i r ly close to the 1956 Ring Road alignment. The M.E.T.S . examined the transportation requirements for the metropolitan area to the year 1980 and a revised Ring alignment was proposed two to three miles beyond the previous alignment. This roadway was to link future internal roads in the city with major rural roads in the region. Once again, no action was taken to protect the al i gnment. In 1973, Alberta Highways and Transportation and the staff and members of the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission ( E . R . P . C . ) , formerly of the E . D . P . C . , participated in the Edmonton Area Study: An Outline Plan for Roads  and Highways. This study identified a preferred route for the Ring Road and major connecting radial roads. The Ring alignment had to be revised due to the encroachment of development on the alignment. This study also examined the multi-purpose corridor concept by recommending that, in addition to the 350 foot road right-of-way, land be acquired for parks and green space uses (1973, 20) and u t i l i t i e s (1973, 22). Also in 1973 , another Ring Road study was completed. The study, _A Multidiscipl inary Evaluation of the Edmonton Parkway Ring, examined the Ring Road concept and identified potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The study examined the general corridor location within which the Ring Road could be located. A half mile wide band was examined and was to - 62 -provide for the road right-of-way, other u t i l i t i e s , environmental buffer zones and parks and recreation, other u t i l i t i e s , environmental buffer zones and parks and recreation uses (1973, 6). Figure 5 indicates the Ring Road alignments from these studies. At this stage, a viable Ring Road alignment had been identified and the merits of multi-purpose Corridor linked with the roadway. The province took the opportunity to expand the recently declared R.D.A. around the city to preserve the Ring alignment. This was done in stages, as the alignment was confirmed. Thus, an approximately half mile wide band circled the City of Edmonton, which was to provide for a transportation and u t i l i t y Corridor. 5.2 Corridor Implementation As discussed above, the province used the R.D.A. Regulation as the mechanism to establish Transportation and U t i l i t y Corridors, although other mechanisms such as the Special Planning Areas allowed for under the Planning Act were available. Alberta Environment's Role Unlike the Joint Development experience in the United States, the provincial Department of Transportation was not granted the responsibility to establish and manage the Corridor. Mr. Yurko, who at that time was the Minister of Environment, stated that the Department of Environment was chosen to administer the Corridors, as i t was the only Department that could take a macro view of the Corridor (pers. com. 1987). The Department was responsible for the environment and this crossed al l department boundaries and thus the Department could relate to the needs of a l l of the interests in the Corridor. - 63 -Legend FIGURE 5 EDMONTON HISTORICAL RING ROAD ALIGNMENT 1 Restricted Development Area — 1056-Edmonton District Plennlng Commission — 1 9 6 3 - M e t r o p o l l l a n Edmonton Transportation Study 1973-Edmonton Area Study An Outline Plan For Roads And Highways • — 1979-Concvptual Plan - 64 -Restricted Development Area Regulations The original Department of the Environment Act provided for the establishment of Restricted Development Areas (R.D.A.s) . R.D.A.s gave the Minister of the Environment land use control over the designated area. According to Mr. Henderson (pers. com. 1987), the f irs t Minister of the Department, this power was granted to the Department to provide a mechanism to resolve interdepartmental conflicts over environmental issues. From 1973 to 1978, the province established 13 R.D.A.s . Table 7 indicates the R.D.A.s created and their purposes. As can be seen, R.D.A.s function to preserve land for recreation purposes, to provide for transportation and u t i l i t y Corridors and to preserve an historic s i te . TABLE 7 List of R.D.A.s R.D.A. Fish Creek Sherwood Park West Pinehurst Lake Fort McMurray Settlement Edmonton-Fort Saskatchewan Edmonton-Devon Year Established 1973 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 Purpose To protect crown investment in the provincial park. To provide for a transportation-uti l i ty Corridor. To protect high recreational capability shoreland. To provide for flood protection. To protect the river valley for environmental and recreational purposes. To protect the river valley for environmental and recreational purposes. - 65 -TABLE 7 L i s t of R.D.A.s (Conti nued) Edmonton Blue Ridge Strathcona Calgary Turt le Mountain Lethbridge 1974 1975 1977 1980 1974 1976 1976 1985 1976 1977 Capital City Recreation Park 1978 To provide for a t ranspor ta t ion/ut i l i t y Corridor. To provide an environmental buffer between an industr ia l s i t e and the hamlet. To protect the crown investment in the provincial park. To provide for a t ranspor ta t i on/ut i l i t y Corr idor. To protect environmentally sensit ive areas and good qual i ty agr icu l tura l lands and to control development in the area. To protect the Frank Sl ide h i s to r i c s i t e . To protect the r iver valley for environmental and recreational purposes. To protect the crown investment in the r iver valley parks. The Regulation allows the Minister of the Environment to ident i f y and designate an area as an R.D.A. A l l of the lands described as being in the R.D.A. come under the control of the Min i s ter . Although the ownership of the land i s not affected by the designation ( i . e . , the landowner retains t i t l e ) , the province places a notice on the t i t l e that i dent i f i e s the land as being in an R.D.A. The bundle of rights associated with land ownership i s - 66 -affected. Although most land uses in existence when the R.D.A. was declared that are not surface disturbing can continue, the owner must obtain the permission of the Minister for any change or intensification of land use. The Regulation applies to a l l lands, whether held by private owners or any level of government. The Regulation takes precedence over all other legis lat ion, which could result in actions contributing to a surface disturbance. Prior to issuing any permit or other approval, these agencies must obtain the consent of the Minister of the Environment. The Regulation requires that the proposed activity be granted consent and the agency which is responsible for the approval or permit be granted consent to issue their approval. The granting of consent for the activity simply reflects the view that the proposed activity will not interfere with the purpose of the R.D.A. and does not imply that other approvals will be granted. In order to provide additional protection, the Regulation prohibits the granting of interests in Crown lands. The Regulation states that the Minister can only approve uses for the area that are compatible with the intent of the R.D.A. and that conditions of approval can apply. In 1977, the Regulation faced a court challenge on the grounds that a transportation and u t i l i t y Corridor was not a valid use of the R.D.A. The Crown lost the case and a portion of the Edmonton R.D.A. was removed. The province amended the Regulation to provide for Corridors and reapplied the designation. The current Regulation has been accepted by the courts. - 67 -The Regulations grant the Minister the authority to acquire land in the R.D.A. by purchase or expropriat ion. The Minister can order removal of structures, equipment and animals from the area and can provide compensation. The R.D.A. Regulation provides the Minister of the Environment with a high level of land use cont ro l , as only a c t i v i t i e s subject to federal j u r i s d i c t i o n ( i . e . , interprov inc ia l pipel ines and railways) and the buying and se l l i n g of property do not f a l l under the Regulation. The Regulation provides a provincial level of zoning, which enables the province to maintain a low intens i ty use of lands in the designated areas. 5.3 Edmonton Transportation/Utility Corridor (T.U.C.) Design and Planning The T.U.C. was established using the R.D.A. Regulation pursuant to the Department of the Environment Act. The Sherwood Park West and the Edmonton R.D.A.s established an approximately half mile wide ring around the City of Edmonton (see Figure 7). A half mile was chosen as an appropriate width to provide for a Corr idor, to provide adequate land use separation and to provide pol lut ion cont ro l . The width is not exactly a half mi le, due to the method used to describe the lands designated as R.D.A. To quickly describe the boundaries of the R.D.A., complete parcel boundaries ( i . e . , parcels created by a registered Plan of Subdivision or by Transfer of T i t l e ) or legal descriptions ( i . e . , sections, quarter sections, legal subdivis ions, quarter legal subdivisions or metes and bounds) were used, even though only portions of parcels were required. In A lberta, most of the land was la id out using the Township pattern. A township is a 6 mile square containing 36 sections of 1 square mile. Each section has 4 quarter sections a half mile square, - 68 -containing 160 acres. As well , each section contains 16 legal subdivisions of 40 acres. Each quarter section contains 4 legal subdivisions. F ina l ly , each of the legal subdivisions can be further sudivided into 10 acre parcels or quarter legal subdivisions. The section, quarter section, legal subdivision and quarter subdivision are acceptable and common means to describe land holdings. Most homesteads were a quarter section each. The rural road pattern in the more developed areas is a grid with two miles separating parallel road allowances running north-south. The use of this system resulted in defining the boundary to the nearest quarter subdivision. Figure 6 indicates the legal parcel descriptions associated with this system. S E C T I O N 24 T O W N S H I P 31 32 33 34 35 36 30 29 29 27 26 25 1? 20 21 22 23 it 17 16 15 14 13 7 8 9 10 II 12 6 5 4 3 2 1 r t MERIDIAN SECTION - 1 MILE — NW 1/4 NE 1/4 - 2 4 ^ SW1/4 : :; :: ::SE \iKv. SE 1/4 SECTION 24 SECTION - 1 MILE — 13 14 IS 16 12 11 10 A 9 5 V J & J 7 t 4 3 2 1 LSD 6 ol SECTION 24 FIGURE 6 - TOWNSHIP SURVEY Source: Alberta Energy and Natural Resources. Reference Manual For Alberta  Land Agents. 1982. Figure 4-1, Page 47T - 69 -The Department of the Environment developed a series of plans for the Corridor, with the assistance of a technical committee comprised of representatives of industry, municipal service agencies and provincial agencies. The committees provided an indication of industry's right-of-way requirements in the Corridor and developed a series of ideal cross-sections for the arrangement of f a c i l i t i e s . Figure 7 i l lustrates the cross-sections. The f i rs t cross-section was appropriate where the highway fac i l i ty was centred within the Corridor and was to be constructed after some of the other u t i l i t i e s . The second cross-section was appropriate where the highway f a c i l i t y was centred in the Corridor and would be constructed prior to the construction of other u t i l i t i e s . The third cross-section was appropriate where the highway f a c i l i t y was to be located near to the R.D.A. boundary. . Space was allocated for the primary uses, including a highway right-of-way, oil and gas pipelines, e lectric transmission l ines , distribution services ( i . e . , municipal services such as powerlines, natural gaslines, sewer and water l ines) , flex space (space for expansion), service roads and buffer areas. Within the pipeline, powerline and distribution services component areas, the u t i l i t i e s would locate their own rights-of-way. The arrangement of the components within the Corridor reflected the fac i l i t y design requirements and the compatibility problems between the f a c i l i t i e s . The ideal cross-sections were applied to the R.D.A. lands and modifications made to reflect variations in projected right-of-way requirements and variations in the R.D.A. width. In 1985, the plans were reviewed and an extensive reassessment of the land requirements undertaken. Revised plans were prepared, which improved the component arrangement and INSIDE URBAN SUBDIVISION » T 3 a > — © LOW 3 1 VOLTAGE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION ® - O 3 ,lo • o •15 = 8 OUTSIDE URBAN SUBDIVISION - CROSS SECTION 1 INSIDE URBAN SUBDIVISION Pih H5»I5 1 1 if, -OIL C l £ I; Hi »-1 1 ~ L O W Q>—I H I G H © j S V O L T A G E 1 V O L T A G E J > E L E C T R I C 1 E L E C T R I C I.« T R A N S M I S S I O N | T R A N S M I S S I O N JT| H W Y . H W Y . >i *l OAS SS| OR i j , HVP GAS fcl - le 0 £ LJ OIL 3 0 - 11 i>5> Pa k -"jtn • "* i a = S - 1*0 — — » 0 -103 1-•0 . S 4 0 . 3 4 0 > tO • ITS —. - — I 7 B — ' «0 wo • w —. — 1 3 5 — • L*so — 1 4 0 - . OUTSIDE URBAN SUBDIVISION CROSS SECTION 2 ^1 O SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE { <D) INSIDE URBAN SUBDIVISION 8 3 _ s'5 Si t% > « » M» •» k 5 :s 3 > • i i HWY. HWY. I—(D |~© I nIGM LOW > VOLTAGE ! VOLTAGE ELECTRIC • ELECTRIC ri1 1 ' o l TRANSMISSION | TRANSMISSION 2=1 1 I 1 9 ©-S U GAS ; WI OR » l j | MVP GAS —<D OIL 5|0 5 ° : i " -S »-140-. — i s o — • — 1/s - • ' — I T S — * «o 1 4 0 1 4 0 » -1 t o — s o - u OUTSIDE URBAN CROSS SECTION 3 SUBDIVISION HIGH VOLTAGE LOW VOLTAGE • DISTRIBUTION -138 kV AND ABOVE (BASICALLY) ABOVE 23kV TO 240 kV 23 kV ANO BELOW FIGURE 7 - IDEAL CROSS-SECTIONS Source: Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Report to the Electric Transmission Committee on the Planning  Approach, (Edmonton, Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, 1980), Figure 1, 13. - 71 -reduced most of the component widths to reflect current industry projections of right-of-way need. These conceptual Corridor plans do not have statutory authority but are used by Alberta Environment as a guide for the placement of u t i l i t i e s in the Corridor and to evaluate land use development requests and as a basis for land acquisition negotiations. The Edmonton and the Sherwood Park West R.D.A. contain approximately 19,000 acres, of which only 11,000 acres are required for the T.U.C. The remaining 8,000 acres are not required for the T .U.C. and comprise unassigned land within the T.U.C. and residual land outside the T .U.C. but within the R.D.A. boundary. Figure 8 is a schematic of a one mile segment of the Edmonton Corridor that indicates that the unassigned lands are strips and pockets created by the design requirements of the u t i l i t i e s , while the residual land reflects the difference between Corridor needs and the definition of the R.D.A. boundary. Alberta Environment has identified a range of surface land uses for the Corridor which are compatible with the primary Corridor uses. These secondary land uses are intended to maximize land use in the Corridors and to integrate the Corridor into the adjacent land use pattern. Land uses such as agriculture, parks and recreation, and parking and storage are appropriate. - 72 -|-'.• [• \\ - NON T U C LAN0 FIGURE 8 - CORRIDOR LAND CLASSES Corridor Status The Edmonton T.U.C. has a number of u t i l i t y rights-of-way but many simply cross the Corridor and predate the T.U.C. plans. Few f a c i l i t i e s have been located in the T.U.C. in accordance with the plans. Since 1985, the City of Edmonton has been completing the detailed design for the Ring Road on the west and south sections of the Corridor. It i s anticipated that construction of an interim version ( i . e . , the Ring Road i s planned to be an eight lane l imited access freeway with grade separated interchanges, while the interim plan is only a four lane f a c i l i t y with at grade intersections) w i l l begin within the next few years and continue to the late 1990's. - 73 -The province had, by 1986, acquired approximately 60% of the land in the Edmonton and Sherwood Park West R.D.A.s . An examination of the annual reports for the Department of the Environment land purchases indicates that between 1976 and 1983 ( i . e . , the years acquisition costs are available) the Department spent approximately $200 mill ion for land in the Edmonton and Sherwood Park West R.D.A.s . Al l of the Crown land in the R.D.A.s has been leased for secondary land uses. The major use is agriculture but uses such as tree farms, rental garden plots, driving ranges, shooting ranges, gravel pits and industrial storage areas have been approved. 5.4 I n s t i tu t i ona l Framework There are a number of acts, regulations, statutory plans and bylaws and industry standards that affect primary and secondary land use implementation, including: Energy Resources Conservation Act Hydro and Electr ic Energy Act The Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act Municipal Government Act Pipeline Act The Planning Act Public Lands Act Water Resources Act Subdivision Regulation Land Conservation Regulation Regional Plans - 74 -General Municipal Act Land Use Bylaw Canadian Standards Associations Standards This legislation is administered by a number of government departments and municipal agencies. The Alberta Corridor program is administered through a voluntary cooperative interdepartmental structure. The province has assigned the lead role to the Department of the Environment, as the department's responsibil it ies cross many departmental jur isdict ions . The government departments and the agencies involved with the Corridor program that are to be discussed include the Department of the Environment, the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services, the Department of Transportation and U t i l i t i e s , the Energy Resources Conservation Board and the municipalit ies. Department of the Environment Alberta Environment is the lead agency for Corridors through the powers granted by the R.D.A. Regulation. The Land Use Branch of the Environmental Assessment Division was established to administer the R.D.A. The Branch provides program direction to al l other agencies. This Branch has had prepared a plan for the Corridors and requires that all act ivi t ies conform to these plans. These plans are an orthophoto base of the Corridor with the space allocations for the major uses indicated generally by parallel strips adjacent to the road right-of-way. The Branch reviews al l u t i l i t y permit applications in the R.D.A.s for conformance with the Corridor plan, and assesses all interim and secondary land use development proposals to determine the implication on the Corridor - 75 -and prepares recommendations for or against granting Ministerial consent, which are submitted to the Director of the Environmental Assessment Division for a. decision. The Linear Projects Section is the main referral agency for all pipeline and powerline applications submitted to the Energy Resources Conservation Board ( E . R . C . B . ) . Staff refer proposals to other government agencies for their review and coordinate the response of the agencies to the E .R.C.B . Section staff provide assistance to the Land Use Branch regarding technical considerations on applications for the Ministerial Approval, to be issued by the Minister of the Environment as required by the Pipe!ine Act and the Hydro  and Electr ic Energy Act. Department of Public Works, Supply and Services The sections of the Department involved in the program include the Land Management and Planning Branch. These groups are responsible for the management of the Crown lands in the R.D.A.s . The Land Management and Planning Branch is the lead agency for the R.D.A. management. For the right-of-way applications approved by the Department of the Environment, this branch prepares the easement documents for the Crown lands. As wel l , al l interim and secondary land use ( i . e . , surface use) proposals are reviewed with regard to the impact on the Crown lands, and i f use is approved by the Department of the Environment, a lease is granted. The Land Acquisition Branch is the agency that is responsible for the acquisition of land required for al l other government programs (except for Transportation projects). Prior to 1983, a l l provincial agency purchases were undertaken by the Land Assembly Division of Alberta Environment. The - 76 -Land Assembly Division had the purchase responsibil ity, as well as the Land Use Branch R.D.A. administration functions. In 1983, the Division was reorganized. The acquisition responsibility was transferred to the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services by Alberta Regulation 289/83, Public Service Administrative Transfers Act. This Branch has been given the acquisition powers in the R.D.A. Regulation, and can negotiate to acquire the lands or invoke the expropriation powers. The Municipal Development Branch provides basic engineering services for the Department. Generally, this means the provision of site services for a Department sponsored development but for the R.D.A. program this Branch provides site maintenance services. Department of Transportation and Util ities This Department has been a lead agency for the planning of the Ring Road and the Corridors. The Urban Transportation and Planning Division is the primary participant. The Urban Transportation Branch is responsible for the review of the detailed plans for roads in and around major centres, which will receive funding from the province. With respect to the Corridors, this Branch reviews the Ring Road plans prepared by the municipalities for conformance with provincial objectives and standards. The Planning Branch developed the in i t ia l preliminary functional plans for the Ring Roads. This Branch continues to have primary responsibility for the design of the Calgary Ring Road but since the majority of the Edmonton Ring Road l ies within the c i ty , i t is no longer undertakng the design for the Edmonton Ring Road. The Branch acts as a referral agency for Alberta Environment by reviewing the Ring Road plans prepared by the municipalities - 77 -for conformance with provincial standards and the Corridor plans. It also reviews interim and secondary land use proposals to determine the potential impact to the Ring Road. Energy Resources Conservation Board (E.R.C.B.) The E .R .C .B . was established to conserve and manage the energy resources in the province. The E .R .C .B . has members with experience from government resource agencies or private sector resource industries. The E.R.C.B. prepares projections of remaining reserves and projections of energy demand, controls the development of resources and ensures safe industry practices. The Board, as a quasi-judicial tr ibunal , administers the Hydro and Electr ic  Energy Act and the Pipeline Act. In the review of applications for permits to construction pipelines and powerlines, the E .R.C.B . considers the project jus t i f i ca t ion , right-of-way routing issues, economics, land use and environmental impacts and technical and safety considerations. The E .R.C.B . so l i c i t s the views of interested government agencies and other affected groups or individuals. Although the E .R.C.B . is responsible for the permit to construct, a permit cannot be issued without Ministerial Approvals by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Wildl i fe . Municipalities The municipalities which are responsible for the land within an R.D.A. designation continue to discharge their legislative responsibi l i t ies . The only restrict ion is that prior to issuing approvals for act iv i t ies which would result in surface disturbances, Ministerial consent from the Department of the Environment is required. This creates another step in the municipal approval process. If Ministerial consent is obtained, the municipality proceeds to review the proposal and renders a decision. The granting of - 78 -Ministerial consent does not influence the decision making process ( i . e . , an approval may not be granted, even though consent was obtained). If Ministerial consent has been refused, the municipality may not proceed with the approval process. The municipality continues to be responsible for the provision of municipal services and remains the taxing authority for these lands. The responsibility for Ring Road planning transfers to the city when the R.D.A. l ies within its boundary. This transfer occurs because Section 172 of the Municipal Government Act grants ownership of the road right-of-way to the municipality. The municipalities have cooperated with the Department of the Environment to integrate the Corridors into the proposed land use pattern by referring land use proposals within one half mile of the R.D.A. boundary to the Department for review. The municipality is not bound by Environment's comments, as the lands are outside the R.D.A. These agencies are not required by their Acts or Regulations to cooperate in the administration of the Corridors but rather cooperate to maintain good will and to avoid encountering the overriding power of the R.D.A. Regulation granted the Department of the Environment. 5.5 Consideration of Alberta Corridor Program The Alberta implementation legislation and the institutional arrangement has allowed the Corridor program to be in effect for over 10 years. The legis lat ion has withstood several court challenges. The superior standing of the legislation has resulted in the construction of a number of pipelines and - 79 -legis lat ion has also maintained the low density use of the Corridor, which has preserved the v iab i l i ty of the alignment. The Corridor was located using the projected pipeline right-of-way needs in north Edmonton and the ring road alignment. A c ircular alignment with no origin-destination but centred on a road right-of-way solved a major problem with Corridor establishment. A coordinated effort of the u t i l i t y companies, the municipal service and transportation agencies identified the projected types of f a c i l i t i e s that could use the Corridor. The expropriation powers of the legislation have ensured that parcels required for an alignment for a pending fac i l i t y can be obtained. Although the various agencies and interests have cooperated in the design of the Corridor plans, these agencies have not adopted the plans which has resulted in changes to the design. The province reassessed the number and type of projects and the Corridor land requirements were reduced and the plans revised. This reduction was expected to greatly reduce the land acquisition costs. The land acquisition program has required approximately $400 mill ion for both the Edmonton and the Calgary Corridors. With the purchase program 60% complete and assuming the acquisition costs remain constant, another $250 mill ion would be required to complete the purchases. These funds come from the Land Purchase Fund, do not affect the program budgets of the other departments and have not resulted in interdepartmental opposition. However, there is a concern that the public may not approve the expenditure of scarce public funds on this program. - 80 -A problem that has arisen from the acquisition program is the disposition of excess lands. As noted previously, although the province has attempted to buy only the portion of a parcel that is required for the Corridor, landowner requests and access or parcel size constraints have necessitated the purchase of entire parcels. These lands are not required for the Corridor but l i e within the R.D.A. The province is presently considering whether or not to release these lands from the R.D.A. and sell the lands. In a few instances, in response to landowner requests, the province has redefined the R.D.A. boundary to release rather than purchase the residual lands. However, a release policy has not been established and this has created uncertainty for the Corridor landowners, adjacent landowners and the planning authorities in the s tabi l i ty of the R.D.A. boundaries. The majority of the residual land could be physically incorporated into the adjacent areas, as long as the land is included in the land use plans for the adjacent lands. Once a subdivision plan is registered, i t would be d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, to incorporate these lands. As development is approaching the inner boundary of the R.D.A. , the province must decide soon whether or not to release these residual lands for development. There has been concern raised by the land development industry that the Corridor creates a hardship on the developers of areas outside the R.D.A. boundaries, as a l l of the services must cross approximately half mile with no compensation. In general, the Corridor will not require services and, thus, wi l l not contribute to the construction costs. These costs will be passed on to the consumers of the lots in these areas. The development industry has requested that the province compensate for the additional costs incurred to cross the Corridor and the province is presently considering this request. - 81 -The Corridor is a continuous band that has variation in width to reflect variations in right-of-way demand. The Corridor is designed to accommodate a consistent number of f a c i l i t i e s along a length of certain width. However, many u t i l i t i e s do not require an alignment along an entire length but can pass in and out of the Corridor in a short distance. This results in an uneven use of the space for the component. U t i l i t i e s prefer a straight alignment to minimize construction costs and oppose a zigzag route. This results in the loss of land for rights-of-way. A Corridor with a roadway component in a metropolitan area experiences design d i f f i cu l t i es imposed by interchanges. Most metropolitan limited access roadways require a large number of interchanges to direct traf f ic to and from the f a c i l i t y . While pipelines and powerlines have a consistent width, a road right-of-way has width variations due to the interchange land requirements. An interchange can require a half mile of land. Pipelines and powerlines must deflect around interchanges, which increases the length and increases construction costs. The greater the number of interchanges, the greater the costs. The Corridor was designed to be incorporated within the city with urban development straddling the R.D.A. Once development l ies adjacent to the outer boundary of the Corridor, a barrier to right-of-way access to the Corridor could be created. To overcome this problem, a number of short penetrator Corridors have been proposed to provide radial access through to the major Corridor. These Corridors must be of sufficient width and length to ensure the major Corridor is used to i ts full capacity. To minimize land use and community impacts, these penetrators must be established prior to - 82 -intensive development outside the R.D.A. The identification of suitable locations for these f a c i l i t i e s is as d i f f i cu l t a problem as determining Corridor width. Secondary land uses have been identified to help integrate the Corridor into the adjacent land use pattern but the adjacent land developers have not recognized the surface use of the Corridor as an opportunity. An examination of the land use plans for land adjacent to the boundary reveals that many of the subdivisions are designed with lots that back onto the Corridor and create a barrier. Furthermore, only a limited number of access points have been provided through these subdivisions to reduce the barrier effect of the Corridor. There are no examples where a subdivision open space use, such as a park reserve, has been designed to be linked with the open space of the Corridor. The Corridor, therefore, remains isolated from adjacent development. When the R.D.A.s were established, they were often called Greenbelts. A review of the newspaper articles on the R.D.A.s reveals that the media have used this term in most art ic les . A powerline is being proposed along the east side of Edmonton. The company wants to use portions of an existing right-of-way within the city but the Department of the Environment has requested an alternative alignment within the Sherwood Park West R.D.A. ( i . e . , within the Corridor) be provided. Major opposition has arisen from the landowners adjacent to the R.D.A. They argue that a powerline is unsightly and not an appropriate use for a Greenbelt. The application is presently before the E .R .C .B . The u t i l i t y companies have not accepted the Corridors without reservations. A review of permit applications for f a c i l i t i e s in or near the - 83 -Corridors indicates a reluctance to use a Corridor alignment. This reluctance stems from three sources, the existence of private landowners in the Corridor, the uncertainty over the alignment of the Ring Road right-of-way and the increases in construction costs. The remaining landowners in the R.D.A. are not interested in sell ing their land for a variety of reasons and can require the u t i l i t y company to face a prolonged approval process through submission of an intervention. Until the Ring Road is constructed, the poss ibi l i ty exists that there will be changes in the right-of-way boundary. Since the road right-of-way forms the core of the Corridor and al l f a c i l i t i e s are arranged in the Corridor with reference to this right-of-way, any changes could necessitate d i f f i cu l t and costly relocations. As noted above, a Corridor alignment can require that the f a c i l i t y not use the shortest route. The interchanges and the circular aspect of the Corridor results in the need for bends and deflections in the alignments. Both of these result in increased costs. The Corridor is administered by the cooperative efforts of a number of provincial and municipal agencies. While the R.D.A. regulation grants the Department of the Environment control over land use in the designated area, i t does not provide for control over act iv i t ies on adjacent land that could impact the Corridor. The Regulations do not provide a mechanism to require industry to use a Corridor alignment. By refusing to grant Ministerial Approval pursuant to the Pipelines Act or the Hydro and Electr ic Energy Act for alignments outside the Corridor, the Department of the Environment can pressure the companies to provide a Corridor alternative. There is no mechanism to ensure that the E .R.C.B . approves the Corridor alternative, as the E .R.C.B . has to consider each application on its merits and not be - 84 -predisposed to a specific alignment or use precedent. There is no mechanism to require the agencies to cooperate and to resolve disputes. The program functions to a certain extent on the understanding and reasonableness of agency staff. As development pressures increase and there are a greater number of f a c i l i t i e s in the Corridor, this management system may not be capable of handling the conflicts and pressures. 5.6 Conclusion The Alberta Corridor program was established due to a number of unique ci rcumstances. Although there were very large land acquisition costs associated with the program, the province had access to vast budget surpluses that reduced the significance of the acquisition costs. The province saw the Corridor program as a major component of their balanced growth policy. The policy of balanced growth and the determination of major industrial sites and the cooperation of industry, made the determination of the location and width of Corridors possible. The R.D.A. Regulation is unique legislation that provides a means to control land use and expropriate property. Its superior standing requires the compliance of the other agencies and interests in the Corridor, to the Department of the Environment's requirements. It provides a coordinating function. - 85 -CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, a summary of the conclusions about the thesis hypothesis will be provided. Conclusions regarding the requirements for Corridor implementation will be put forward and those requiring further research will be noted. F ina l ly , the implication of Corridor implementation to planning will be discussed. 6.1 Hypothesis Conclusions The hypotheses to be addressed in these were: 1. That Corridors provide economic, environmental and social net benefits for the community in the long term. 2. That, in spite of the benefits to the community, Corridors have not been established universally because: a) the need to own the land requires a large capital investment; b) determining the appropriate Corridor width and location is d i f f i cu l t due to the variety of f a c i l i t i e s having incompatible location requirements; and c) the lack of an institutional framework to coordinate the variety of regulatory agencies and interests involved with the linear f a c i l i t i e s . Chapter Three outlined the benefits and disadvantages to Corridor implementation. Most of the advantages and disadvantages for the potential users are short term, and related to the decision to locate in a single - 86 -right-of-way or in a Corridor alignment. The disadvantage of Corridors to the community focus on the major fiscal contribution. The community that implements Corridors receives net benefits in the long term through the preservation of their resources and the land use options for future generations. In Chapter Two, the linear f a c i l i t i e s right-of-way cr i t er ia and impacts and the compatibility between linear f a c i l i t i e s was discussed. It was shown that the location and the width of rights-of-way is dependent upon site and project specific characterist ics . In Chapter Three, i t was noted that three major disadvantages inhibited Corridor implementation, including high land costs, the d i f f icul ty in locating and establishing the width of Corridors and the lack of an implementation mechanism or institutional framework to coordinate the government departments, regulatory agencies, and public and private u t i l i t i e s . The case study of the Alberta Corridor program indicated how, through a unique set of circumstances, these problems were overcome to allow for the establishment of two transportation/uti l i ty Corridors. 6.2 Alternatives for Corridor Implementation The ideal situation is to have identified actual projects and associated l inear f a c i l i t i e s and the probable route, have ful l ownership of the route and have the abi l i ty to control the location of the f a c i l i t i e s . This combination is d i f f i cu l t to achieve but this does not mean that Corridors cannot be established unless al l of the conditions are met. It is possible to estimate linear fac i l i t y development, identify right-of-way need and design a Corridor location and width to meet the minimum requirements of the - 87 -projected f a c i l i t i e s . The argument being that the costs of overestimating demand are less than the costs incurred by not controlling right-of-way development. There are three techniques to locate and establish a width for Corridors that can overcome some of the implementation d i f f i cu l t i e s . These are the use of existing rights-of-way, developing a Corridor grid and identifying areas that are restricted for rights-of-way. Existing Rights-of-Way An established right-of-way through an area, especially a road or railway right-of-way, has a major impact on the area. The addition of land for future rights-of-way adjacent to the existing fac i l i t y will increase the impact but not as greatly as single rights-of-way. The choice of the existing right-of-way to be followed must meet the objectives of providing needed access but minimizing impacts. Corridor Grid A grid of Corridor would l ike ly work best within urban areas as noted by Lea (1969) and Leisch (1969). Using the major arterial pattern as the basis of the grid, a fixed width would be set aside adjacent to the road right-of-way for future rights-of-way. The width would be established by examining the existing right-of-way commitment and projecting future requirements. Restricted Areas In Montana, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have a program to identify avoidance areas, inclusion areas and windows. In the Util ity-Transportation Corridor Study for Montana, these are defined as follows: - 88 -Avoidance areas - Land areas that pose particular environmental impacts which would be d i f f i cu l t or impossible to mitigate or which pose unusual engineering constraints (1981, 57). Exclusion areas - Land areas determined to be unavailable for corridor allocation or fac i l i t y s it ing for reasons of unsuit-a b i l i t y , legis lat ive c lass i f icat ion , or pr ior , unalterable allocation to uses incompatible with fac i l i t y sit ing (1981, 57). Window - Usually short, narrow passageways through constrained areas which are the most feasible potential locations for linear f a c i l i t i e s , considering engineering and/or environmental factors (1981, 58). The approach to Corridor planning is reversed. By identifying areas that are not available or suitable for rights-of-way, appropriate Corridor locations are identified by default. These alternatives work best in areas under control of a government agency or agencies, such as municipal government or management agencies for Crown lands. 6.3 Further Research From the existing l i terature , i t is not clear what the range of additional costs of using a Corridor alignment are to the u t i l i t i e s . A comparison is required of the costs and benefits associated with a fac i l i ty route within the Edmonton Corridor and those associated with a route outside or without the Corridor. The costs of overestimating a Corridor land requirement should be ident i f ied . The lost opportunity costs and the consequences of an unused str ip of land on the adjacent land use pattern should be determined. It would be interesting to examine why municipalities, such as Sarnia, with similar linear fac i l i t y pressure to Edmonton have not established a - 89 -Corridor. The means that have provided for right-of-way access and the problem should be identi f ied. 6.4 Implications for Planning Corridors will not resolve al l linear fac i l i ty right-of-way concerns. The spatial distribution of resources, terminals and population centres prohibits the location of all rights-of-way in Corridors. However, where there are patterns of heavy right-of-way use and demand, Corridors can reduce the impacts of these f a c i l i t i e s . Corridors can be used to promote the development of a remote site in a manner similar to the provision of infrastructure in an urban area. Corridors can help balance resource development and associated right-of-way needs with the preservation of the environment. The major implication of Corridors is that i t incorporates the planning of u t i l i t i e s in the municipal or provincial land use planning process. In Alberta, powerlines and pipelines, through provisions of, and exemption to the Planning Act, are not included in the land use planning process. These f a c i l i t i e s are under the jurisdict ion of other Acts and Regulations that provide for land use planning concerns but only in a reactive manner ( i . e . , responding to applications and lodging interventions). Planning for Corridors allows rights-of-way to be treated in the same manner ( i . e . protect and provide opportunities as all other land uses). At present, primarily economics and engineering factors influence right-of-way planning. Corri'dors would ensure that these f a c i l i t i e s were integrated with and not at odds with policies for all other uses for land. - 90 -BIBLIOGRAPHY The Aerospace Corporation. Technical Compatibility Factors for Joint-Use  Ri ght-of-Way. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior, n.p.: The Aerospace Corporation, 1975. Alberta. Department of Agriculture. Assessment of Effects of Power Lines on  Farming Operations in Alberta. Prepared by Frank Hanus. Edmonton: Resource Economics Branch, 1979. . Department of Energy and Natural Resources. Report to the Electr ic Transmission Committee on the Planning Approach. Sub-Committee #3; Edmonton: Department of Energy and Natural Resources, 1980. . Department of Energy and Natural Resources. Review of Compatibility Concerns in the Joint Use of Corridors by Pipelines and  Powerlines. Edmonton: Department of Energy and Natural Resources, 1981. . Department of the Environment. Annual Report, for the Year Ended March 31, 1980. Edmonton: Alberta Department of the Environment, 1980. . Department of the Environment. Annual Report, for the Year Ended 1981. Edmonton: Alberta Department of the Environment, 1981. . Department of the Environment. Annual Report, for the Year Ended 1982. Edmonton: Alberta Department of the Environment, 1982. . Department of the Environment. Annual Report, for the Year Ended 1983. Edmonton: Alberta Department of the Environment, 1983. . Corridor Concept. Vol . 1 Report - Part 1 of Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study. Prepared by Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1974. . Corridor Development Plan. Vol . 1 Report - Part 2 of Alberta Oil Sands Corridor Study. Prepared by Alberta Oil Sands Corridor Study Group. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1974. . Extracts from Existing Literature Compiled for Use of Study Group. Vol . 2 Appendix of Transportation Corridor Study. Prepared by Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1973. . The Effect of Existing Legislation. Vol . 3 Appendix of Transport-ation Corridor Study. Prepared by Swist & Company. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1973. - 91 -. Environment: General Characteristics and Conditions. Vol . 4, Part 1 Appendix of Transportation Corridor Study. Prepared by Bolter Parish Trimble L t d . ; Ducks Unlimited (Canada); Tom Peters & Associates; Siemens Realty & Appraisal Services Ltd. and Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1973. . Environment: General Characteristics and Conditions. Vol . 4, Part 2 Appendix of Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study. Prepared by Bolter Parish Trimble L t d . ; Ducks Unlimited (Canada); Tom Peters & Associates; K.C. Mackenzie Associates Ltd. and Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1974. . Effect Upon Human Settlement Patterns. Vol . 5 Appendix of Transportation Corridor Study. Prepared by K.C. Mackenzie Associates Ltd . Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1973. Environment and Engineering Powerline - Pipeline - Highway -Railway. Vol . 6" Appendix of Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study. Prepared by Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1973. . Public Meetings - Phase I . Vol . 7A Appendix of Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study. Prepared by Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1974. . Public Meetings - Phase II . Vol . 7B Appendix of Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study. Prepared by Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1974. . Corridors and Terminals. Vo l . 8 Appendix of Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study. Prepared by Athabasca Tar Sands Corridor Study Group. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir, Stewart, Watson & Heinrichs, 1974. Department of Highways and Transport. Edmonton Area Study. Edmonton: Planning Branch, 1973. Alberta Department of the Environment Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980. Chapter D-19. Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980. Chapter E - l l . Alberta Expropriation Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980. Chapter E-16. Alberta Hydro and Electric Energy Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980. Chapter H-13. Alberta Labour and Electr ic U t i l i t y Regulations. Alberta Regulation 44/76, 183/80 and 305/80. - 92 -Alberta Pipeline Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980. Alberta Planning Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980. Chapter P-9. Alberta Public Service Administration Transfers Act. Alberta Regulation 289/83. Alberta Public Service Administrative Transfers Act. Alberta Regulation 457/83. Alberta Public Works Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980. Chapter P-38. Allman, R . J . and Dilay, J . D . "Policies for Pipeline Safety Near Urban Areas." In Pipelines in Adverse Environments II . New York: American Society of Civ i l Engineers, 1983. American Association of State Highway Off i c ia l s . A Guide for Accommodating  U t i l i t i e s on Highway Rights-of-Way. Washington, D.C. : American Association of State Highway Off i c ia l s , 1970. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of f i c ia l s . Highway  Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety. Second Edit ion. Washington, D.C. : American Association of State Highway and Transportation O f f i c i a l s , 1974. American Public Works Association. Accommodation of U t i l i t y Plant Within the  Rights-of-Way of Urban Streets and Highways: Manual of Improved  Practice~ Chicago: American Public Works Association, 1974. . Accommodation of U t i l i t y Plant Within the Rights-of-Way of Urban Streets~and Highways: State-of-the-Art. Chicago: American Public Works Association, 1974. Berkowitz, John. "Highway and U t i l i t y Share Corridor." Civ i l Engineering-ASCE 44 (November, 1974): 61-53. Beuscher, J . H . "The Highway Corridor as a Legal Concept." Highway Corridor  Planning and Land Acquisit ion. Highway Research Record No. 166. Washington, D.C. : Highway Research Board, 1967. Blasingame, J . D . "Construction of a 30" Pipeline in a Power Company R/W". In Pipelines in Adverse Environments: A State of the Art . Vol . 1. New York: American Society of Civ i l Engineers, 1978. Bradley, Gordon W. et a l . "Energy Corridor in Hawaii." U t i l i t y Fac i l i t i e s  in Transportation Corridors. Transportation Research" Record No. 571. Washington, D.C. : Transportation Research Board, 1976. Brown, Verne R. "Util i ty Space Allocations on Public Rights of Way." Right of Way 20 (February, 1973): 14-18. - 93 -Campbell, E . Wilson. "Transportation Systems Corridors." Highway Corridor  Planning and Land Acquisit ion. Highway Research Record No. 166. Washington, D .C. : Highway Research Board, 1967. Clinger, Charles E. "Uti l i t ies Along Texas Roadways." Right of Way 29 (February 1982): 13+. Crosbie, D.A. "Panel: Multiple Use of Transportation Corridors." In Proceedings of the 1971 Road and Transportation Association of Canada, n.p.: Roads and Transportation Association, 1971. DeLeuw Cather Canada and L.W. Downey Research Associates Ltd. A Mult i - Disciplinary Evaluation of the Edmonton Parkway Ring. Prepared for the Department of Highways and Transport. Edmonton: nTp., 1973. Edmonton Distr ict Planning Commission. Metropolitan Edmonton Transportation  Study. 2 vols. Edmonton: n .p . , 1963. Edmonton Regional Planning Commission and Department of Highways. Regional  Rural Road Study. 2 vols. Edmonton: n .p . , 1966-7. Energy Resources Conservation Board. Northeast Edmonton Pipeline Corridor  Inquiry. Inquiry Report 81-29. Calgary: Energy Resources Conservation Board, 1981. Engelen, Rodney E. "Joint . Development: Institutional Constraints and Potentials." Transportation and Land Development Pol icy . Transport-ation Research board Record No. 565. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 1976. . "New Institutions for Joint Development." Transportati on Serving Community Needs. Transportation Research Record No. 528. Washington, D.C. : Transportation Research Board, 1974. Environment Council of Alberta. The Impacts of Linear Developments, Resource  Extraction and Industry on the Agricultural Land Base. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta, 1982. EPEC Consulting Ltd . Environmental Cr i ter ia for Ring Roads. Prepared for Alberta Department of the Environment. Edmonton: EPEC Consulting L t d . , 1974. Frankland, Bamford. "Coexistence in the Highway Corridor: A Test of Inter-governmental Cooperation." Highway Corridor Planning and Land  Acqui s i t i on . Highway Research Record No. 166. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1967. George, Joseph, D. "Combined Transportation Corridors." In Proceedings of  the 1971 Convention Roads and Transportation Association of Canada. n.p.: Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, (1971). - 94 -. "Highway-Utility Liaison and Co-ordination of Public U t i l i t i e s . " In Proceedings of the 1968 Convention Canadian Good Roads  Association. n.pTi Canadian Good Roads Association, n.d. Goldberg, Michael, A. "Economics of Transportation Corridors: Further Empirical Analysis." Use of Economics, Social and Environmental  Indicators in Transportation Planning. Highway Research Record No. 410. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1972. and Heaver, Trevor, D. "A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Transportation Corridors." Socioeconomic Considerations in Transport- ation Planning. Highway Research Record No. 305. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1970. . "Economics of Transportation Corridors: An Empirical Evaluation." Socia l , Ecomomic and Environmental Factors of Trans-portation. Highway Research Record No. 356. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1971. Gueth, Edward P. J r . "Multiple Use of Rights of Way: The Electric U t i l i t y View." Paper presented at the American Right of Way Association International Education Seminar, Phoenix, Arizona. May, 1973. Guichon, B.G.E. and Blackwell, David R. "Benefits from Multiple-Purpose Rights-of-Way in the Interior of Brit ish Columbia 1985". Right of Way 32 (December 1985): 7-12. Hartman, Lawrence B. "Public Issues and Efficiency in Right-of-Way Use: A Minnesota Approach." In Proceedings of the Third International  Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management" n.p.: Mississippi State University, 1984. Ian Hayward and Associates. Common U t i l i t y Corridor Study. Prepared for the Bri t i sh Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, n .p . , n.d. Henderson, J . D . Letter to author, 9 A p r i l , 1987. Hansala, Waifred E. "The Need for Guidelines for the Joint Occupancy of U t i l i t y and Pipeline Corridors." In Pipelines in Adverse Environments II. Edited by Mark B. P i cke l l . New York: American Society of Civ i l "Engineers, 1983. Highway Research Board. Benefits to U t i l i t i e s from Highway Locations. Special Report No. 75" Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1962. . Multiple Use of Lands Within Highway Rights-of-Way. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 53. Washington, D . C . : Highway Research Board, 1968. - 95 -. Relocation of Public U t i l i t i e s 1956-1966: An Analysis of Legal Aspects. Special Report No. 91. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1966. . Study of Advance Acquisition of Highway Rights-of-Way. Way. Highway Research Circular No. 70. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1967. Hoffman, Robert J . "Assessment of the Current State of the Art of Accommodating U t i l i t i e s in Public Street Rights-of-Way in the United States and Canada." Accommodating U t i l i t i e s in Transportation  Rights-of-Way. Transportation Research Record fTo". 4~8"3~ Washington, D . C : Transportation Research Board, 1974. Howard, H.D. "Resale of Surplus Right of Way Along 1-485." Right of Way 29 (October, 1982): 4-7. Howlett, Bruce E. "Right-of-Way Sharing." In Proceedings of the Third  International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way  Management"^  n.p.: Mississippi State University, 1984. James L. Douglas. "Preservation of Rights-of-Way for Public Fac i l i t i e s ." Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division 93 (December, 1967): 243-255. N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd. Report to Central Mortgage & Housing Corporation  on Transportation Corridors, n.p.: N.D. Lea & Associates L t d . , 1969. Leisch, Jack E. "Transportation Systems in the Future Development of Metropolitan Areas - The Permanent Corridor Concept." Transportation  Systems Planning. Highway Research Record No. 293. Washington, D . C : Highway Research Board, 1969. Levin, David R. "Scenic Corridors." Highway Corridor Planning and Land  Acquisit ion. Highway Research Record No. 166. Washington, D . C : Highway Research Board, 1967. Lewis, Ph i l ip . "The Highway Corridor as a Concept of Design and Planning." Highway Corridor Planning and Land Acquisit ion. Highway Research Record No. 166. Washington, D . C : Highway Research Board, 1967. Manning, Wade S. "Who Will Joint Use?" Right of Way 28 (August, 1981): 20-22. McGrath, William R. "Multiple Use of Highway Rights-of-Way." In Proceedings  of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Traff ic Engineers, n .p . , 1965. Mermel , T.W. "Joint Use of Rights-of-Way Can Reduce Costs of Services." C i v i l Engineering-ASCE 39 (March, 1969): 56-59. - 96 -Mi no, Sadamu. "Multiple Use of Highway Rights-of-Way." In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Traff ic Engineers. n .p . , Montana. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, USDA-Forest Service and USD I-Bureau of Land Management. Util ity-Transportation  Corridor Study for Montana, n.p.: 1981. Ontario. Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Report on Technical Compatibiity Cr i ter ia for Service Fac i l i t i e s in Multiple Use Rights-of-Way. Downsview: Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 1978. Opiela, Kenneth S.; Khasnabis, Snehamay; and Arbogast, Ronald. "Applicability of Joint Development Tools in Detroit." Journal of the  Urban Planning and Development Division 106 (November, 1980): 71-88. Owens, B i l l y G. "Uti l i ty Accommodation." Right of Way 28 (October, 1981): 35-38. Payne, H . L . ; Russel , W.W. and Pacheco, W.A. "Freeway and Rapid Transit Share Corridor." C i v i l Engineering-ASCE 38 (May, 1968): 38-41. Pemcan Services Gas Arctic Systems Study Group. Transportation Corridor  Study. Final Report - Cost Estimates and Economic Impacts. Vol . TTT Calgary: Pemcan Services Gas Arctic Systems Study Group, 1971. Pilarsky, Milton. "Chicago's Crosstown Expressway: Mod-Highway for Urban America." Transportation and Community Values. Special Report 105. Washington, D.C. : Highway Research Board, 1969. Planning Act Exemption Regulation. Alberta Regulation 130/78. Powell, Harry R. and Burrows, F .G. Alden. "Multiple Use of City Transport-ation Corridor." Transportation Engineering Journal 98 (August, 1972): 633-643. Puschel , Mendel A. "Power Lines and Pipelines in Close Proximity During Construction and Operation." Materials Protection and Performance 12 (December, 1973): 28-32. Richards, John and Pratt , Larry. Prairie Capitalism: Power and Influence in  the New West. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979. Roads and Transportation Association of Canada. Efficient Use of Trans- portation Corridors and Coordination of U t i l i t i e s . Ottawa: Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, 1979. Robertson, H.M. "Transportation-Utility Corridors: Are They Practical?" In Proceedings of the National Telecommunications Conference, 1975. n.p.: Association of American Railroads, 1975. - 97 -Robinson, H.C. and Rog, J.W. "Mitigation of Induced AC on a Buried Oil Pipeline Along Power Line Right-of-Way." Materials Protection and  Performance 13 (May, 1974): 27-29. Rivkin, Malcolm D. "Insights into the Practice of Joint Development: Lessons from Experience." Predicting and Measuring Impacts of  Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Record NoT 634. Washington, D . C : Transportation Research Board, 1977. Sandmeyer, Ralph H. J r . "Uti l i ty Corridors for Pipeline Construction." In Pipelines in Adverse Environments II . Edited by Mark B. P icke l l . New York: American Society of Civ i l Engineers, 1983. Sidamon-Eristoff, Constantine. "Is Joint Development the Chicken, or the Egg?" Transportation Engineering Journal 97 (August, 1971): 469-473. Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. Preliminary Examination of the U t i l i t i e s  Corridor Concept for the Northe"ast Alberta Region. Northeast Alberta Regional Plan, n.p.: 1975. Stastny, Francis J . "Joint Ut i l izat ion of Rights-of-Way." Transportation  Engineering Journal 98 (May, 1972): 299-302. Steinmaus, J . Michael. "Siting Considerations: Multiple-Use Versus Single-Use Rights-of-Way"." In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium  on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, edited by Al 1 en F . Crabtree. n.p.: Mississippi State University, 1984. Stewart, Weir & Co. Penetrator Corridor Opportunities in the Edmonton Area. Submission to trie Energy Resources Conservation Board Inqui ry No. 821051: Edmonton Area Electric Transmission Requirements. Edmonton: Stewart, Weir & C o . , 1983. Stuart, Darwin G. "Multiple-Purpose Freeway Land Development." Land  Acquisition and Freeway Land Development. Highway Research Record No. 217. Washington, D . C : Highway Research Board, 1968. Subdivision Regulation. Alberta Regulation 132/78. Texas. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Uti1ity  Accommodation Policy. Rev. 8-75. Austin: State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, (1975). Transportation Research Board. Payments to Public U t i l i t i e s for Relocation  of Fac i l i t i e s in Highway Rights-of-Way. Research Results Digest NbT 116. Washington, D . C : Transportation Research Board, 1980. ^ . Policies for Accommodation of U t i l i t i e s on Highway Rights-of-Way. National Cooperative Highway Research Program No. 34. Washington, D . C : Transportation Research Board, 1976. - 98 -. Reducing Construction Conflicts Between Highways and U t i l i t i e s . National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Syntheses of Highway Practice 115. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 1984. United States. Department of the Interior. The Need for a National System  of Transportation and U t i l i t y Corridors. Washington, D .C. : Department of the Interior, 1975. . Department of Transportation. The Land Use and Development Impacts of Beltways. Prepared by Payne-Maxie Consultants. Washington, D .C . : Government Printing Office, 1980. . Federal Highway Administration. Highway Joint Development and Multiple Use. Washington, D . C : Government Printing Office, 1979. Urban Land Institute: "Common Development - Toronto's Version of Joint Development". Reprint in Right of Way 27 (August, 1980): 37-41. Urhahn, Helmut J . "Planning for Ut i l i t y Corridors and Multiple Faci l i ty Rights-of-Way." Petroleum Industry Training Service, Environmental Planning for Linear Development Course, Calgary, A p r i l , 1983. Van Towle, H. "What Relationship Should Railroads and U t i l i t i e s Have?" Right of Way 28 (August, 1981): 34-37. Van Zandt, Jack E. Guidelines for Joint Development on State Highway  Transportation WaysT Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. Stanford Research Institute, n.p.: Stanford Research Institute, 1972. Weir, Charles H. "Multi-Purpose Transportation Corridors". In Proceedings  on Joint Usage of U t i l i t y and Transportation Corridors, edited by Charles RT Klohn. New York: American Society of Civi l Engineers, 1981. . "The Corridor Concept". Right of Way 28 (August, 1981): 30-32. , and Klassen, June P. "The Corridors Concept: Theory and Application". Right of Way 33 (August, 1986): 22-29. Weir, C.H. and Reay, J . P . "The Corridor Concept - Theory and Application." In Proceedings of a Symposium on Fac i l i ty Sit ing and Routing '84 Energy  and Envi ronment" Vol . ~. 0'Hara: Beauregard Press Limited for Environment Canada, 1984. Western U t i l i t y Group. Western Regional Corridor Study, 1986. Prepared by Michael Clayton & Associates, n .p . , 1986. - 99 -Williams, Ronald L . "Coordinating U t i l i t y Relocations as a Function of State Highway Agencies." Geometries, Water Treatment, U t i l i t y Practices,  Safety Appurtenances, and Outdoor Advertisements. Transportation Research Record RcT 631. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 1977. . "Multiple Use Helps Conserve Space." Right of Way 27 (March, 1980): 20-21. Yurko, Mr. William. Interview with author. Edmonton, Alberta, 7 A p r i l , 1987. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097160/manifest

Comment

Related Items