Time to consider railyard relocation

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/02/2024 (613 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The abrupt and disruptive closure of the Arlington Bridge on Nov. 21 provides another opportunity to discuss relocation of the railyards, specifically the Canadian Pacific (CP, now CPKC) Railway Logan yards and the Weston shops and yards adjacent to the northwest. It is certainly not the first time rail relocation in Winnipeg has been discussed.

I was invited by the late Charles Huband in March 2018 to join an informal committee, known as the Rail Yard Relocation Project, looking at rail relocation options. The committee had already achieved some modest success, meeting with then-mayor Brian Bowman and federal representatives and gaining attention in an editorial in the Free Press. Their plan was to meet with provincial officials to provide background information and gather support and develop a strategy to open discussion of the issue with CP.

Meetings in April, May and August sustained some momentum, including meetings with CentrePort, the provincial government, and the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. A decision was made to undertake a social media campaign under a revised banner, the Remove the Rails Coalition, that would broaden the discussion.

Alas, the campaign gained little attention as far as I know, the web and Facebook pages are inactive since late 2018, and there seems to be no activity in response to the opportunities presented by the Arlington Bridge closure.

It is not as if there is not a clear path forward in terms of federal legislation on rail relocation.

The Rail Relocation and Crossing Act of 1985 is intended to “facilitate the relocation of railway lines or rerouting of railway traffic in urban areas.” The Act provides for the Minister of Transport to allocate financial assistance up to 50 per cent of the cost of developing an urban development and transportation plan and application for rail relocation acceptable to the province and affected municipalities.

The application to the Canadian Transportation Agency must consider how the costs and benefits of the proposed relocation are to be shared by the province, municipalities, railways and other affected interests. It must also specify the financial arrangement to meet the relocation costs, which may be met by a potentially generous relocation grant of up to 50 per cent of the relocation cost. In other words, the Act sets out a well-defined path to a federal-provincial-municipal partnership for rail relocation, including specific directions on the determination of the net costs of railway relocation.

Other cities have already taken advantage of this legislation. Montreal redeveloped the Angus Shops for commercial, industrial and housing purposes between 1993 and 2000. Regina is moving ahead with a $33.6-million Yards Neighbourhood Plan in concert with the province of Saskatchewan and the federal government to transform their railyard site into an urban neighbourhood that supports revitalization of the city centre over this decade. Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary are contemplating rail relocation initiatives.

What impetus was gained by the Remove the Rails Coalition is likely now gone.

Bowman, who supported the idea of the city making the request to study rail relocation, is out of office and there is a new provincial government whose level of support is unknown. The local federal players who supported the initiative, except for Jim Carr, are intact and would likely be receptive to a request that would have to come directly from the City of Winnipeg with provincial support.

The positions of the affected railways are unknown and likely wouldn’t be revealed unless serious steps toward relocation are taken.

Relocation of the CN and CP rail lines and railyards would be an enormous project with significant costs and benefits that need to be carefully identified and evaluated. In the short time that the Remove the Rails Coalition was active, I heard comparisons to the projects that created Assiniboine Park, the floodway and The Forks.

Art DeFehr viewed the elimination of all rail tracks within Winnipeg as “a planner’s dream” for traffic, transit, land development and rail logistics. A compelling study would have to attempt to measure the extensive social costs and benefits, as well as adequate compensation for the affected railways as required under the Rail Relocation and Crossing Act.

I have heard strongly held positions for and against the idea of rail relocation, from the enormous possibilities for urban redevelopment that must swamp any costs to the argument that it is just too costly and disruptive and the railways would never go for it.

My great fear is that the maintenance decisions on the Arlington bridge and other over/underpasses to navigate the railyards will be made without a proper understanding of the pros and cons, the benefits and costs, and the opportunities involved in the alternative of rail relocation.

Simply shrugging off rail relocation as an option that is too complex or too expensive seems irresponsible in light of the federal direction and financial assistance available to study the problem now, even if that step could have been valuably taken years ago.

Wayne Simpson is a professor in the department of economics at the University of Manitoba.