Moving rails out of the city — another study

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/10/2024 (350 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Transport trucks wind into the Canadian Pacific railway yards at Winnipeg’s McPhillips Street, their trailers carrying a tightly-tied-down single heavy line of railcar wheels. The railway overpass over McPhillips is regularly full, sometimes diesel engines shuttling groups of individual cars through and around the yard, or at other times, full trains of squat black tanker cars heading to buyers.

Train horns and the deep thrum of the engines, occasionally the bells of level crossings, all indicate a busy rail centre. There’s no argument that the rail yard in the northern part of the city is a large employer and an economic driver for the city. There’s no argument that the city has grown up around it.

But does it all need to be in the centre of the city? No. And particularly, not anymore.

The fact is that the yard bisects the city, and in strictly economic terms it would probably even be better for the railway itself to be in a location better suited for intermodal connections than shouldering on residential neighbourhoods.

It would certainly be better for the city: no need for an expensive new bridge to replace the failing Arlington Bridge, no need to plan bus routes, rush-hour traffic and active transportation options around the choke-points of going over or under the railway, no need to plan for emergencies and worry about the risks of carrying bitumen and other hazardous chemicals through a wide stretch of the city.

Moving the lines out of Winnipeg would not only offer the opportunity to develop the vast railway lands for housing and commercial properties (without increasing the city’s footprint through urban sprawl), but could offer the chance for inventive ideas like a rapid transit corridor.

But the gap between what could be done, and what will actually be done, is a wide one.

So, again, a study.

Former federal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy is going to lead a two-year study into not only moving railyards outside of the city, but also moving some spur lines as well. Axworthy’s duties will include engaging with both the federal government and the railways to gauge whether moving the lines is feasible. And that doesn’t just mean asking “can they be moved?” — it also means asking “can the parties agree on who will pay?”

The costs, and who will bear them, is without a doubt the most important factor.

There’s not only preparing a new location and the incredible costs of preparing and building something as large as a new rail yard. It’s not only new rail bridges and feeder lines.

Because it’s not only the new — it’s also the old.

Rail lands are hardly greenfield sites. They’ve been in industrial use for generations, criss-crossed with creosote-soaked ties and dappled with past spilled shipped products and train lubricants and fuel. Before they can be used for anything, there would be substantial environmental remediation needed, at, without a doubt, significant cost — a cost that the current owners of the land most likely would not want to pay.

But there are big, expensive jobs that should be done, and this is one of them.

It certainly can’t be undertaken without a full study and equally full commitment from the rail lines and pretty much every level of government, but at the same time, even the most complete study and the greatest commitment don’t guarantee it actually will be done.

There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip.

And even more twixt planning and delivery.

But the only thing that absolutely means nothing will be done is if we don’t even bother to start.