Rail relocation Winnipeg

[peg]

Originally Posted by CoryB

VIA appears to be running on the CN main line west of downtown. The exact same line that tops people's list of what should be relocated outside of Winnipeg first.

I see the argument for removing passing freight traffic from the city, but VIA and passenger rail services should be preserved at Union Station.

I don't see the argument for moving all railways, more so for freight trains and railyards.

[cllew]

I would not be surprised that CPKC that if enough money was offered would close down Weston Shop completely, and move all the work to Ogden Shops in Calgary and their lower cost yards in the US.

Probably easier to do that then build new buildings for a Winnipeg shop.

[optimusREIM]

Unless the offer was sweet enough to keep them here, they would for sure run for greener pastures if the province and city chased them out. No question

[bomberjet]

It's the sad state of affairs where everything consolidates to Calgary/Edmonton.

CN even opened an office in Calgary, as the new CEO lives there and for customer relations with the large amount of head offices located there.

Winnipeg geographical location is still the last major stop before heading through northern Ontario. There would still be some sort of shops here for maintenance. But maybe the large locomotive maintenance facility could locate to Calgary. But even Moose Jaw has a diesel shop. I believe if there was a real effort regarding relocation, the Province would make a push to keep the business here. It would make no sense for them to let major railway companies leave the province to open up some land in north Winnipeg.

In terms of rail network planning, Winnipeg still serves as a major centre. CN is Prince Rupert-Edmonton-Winnipeg-Chicago/Toronto corridor. Similar for CP from Vancouver-Calgary-Winnipeg-Chicago/Toronto.

[bodaggin]

My Rail Relocation Proposal.

-Move CP yards only. CN is far enough out.
-New CP yard in Rosser. Costs Gov nothing. CP sells high priced urban land for low priced rural land. They arbitrage. This gov cost talking point is nonsense.
-New bypass line south of Wpg. Shared corridor CN/CP, minimizes bridges and overpass requirements.
-Bypass eliminates 80% of inner city travel. Resulting in only local spur traffic only (minimal use).

-Convert existing rail into LRT. MUST DO THIS. Saves CoW $10-20B and 10-20yrs. Can be deployed hella fast. And no, don't remove all the rails for BRT. Stick LRT cars on, build stations, and go.

-I reiterate, the net savings when accounting for land arbitrage and LRT savings is massive.



Sorry if I duplicated this post in another thread, just caught this dedicated one.

[bomberjet]

I've got something very similar.

CPKC new route north of City is ~30 miles. Old route through City is ~27 miles. CN new route south of City is ~28 miles. Old route through City is ~24-25 miles depending which line you use as your start point.

CPKC will not go around the south end of the City. The route is too long vs existing. The CPKC route utilizes the existing CEMR track right of way from north Transcona through East St Paul to the Red River. This uses the existing floodway bridge, but requires a new Red River Bridge.

Through West St Paul the ROW is threaded through the residential at Seiler Road, west of PR 220. From there it's westward along one of the grid roads. It could be moved to maybe on the 1/4 line so it's in the middle of the fields. Either way, the route is there. New yard up in Rosser somewhere. I didn't spend much effort at the west end

CN my route starts at Plessis and PTH 1, on a new corridor south across the floodway. New floodway bridge and new Red River Bridge. CN will be picky here on what they want. They never want a longer route, based on travel times. So coming out of Symington, this provides the shortest stretch to get down around the City. They'll probably want a connection from the existing main track near Deacons south of the floodway to my blue alignment as a direct bypass.

CN Transcona Yard would utilize the existing tracks between Plessis/ Lag, etc to get down to Symington and to the new corridor.

South of the floodway, I threaded the new corridor through the residential. There will be some properties that need to go. To the west, I spent little effort, but the tracks will need to just cross cut the farm lands for the shortest route.

The further out you get from the City to avoid residential the longer the route gets. Any of the options need 2 new Red River Crossings, likely a new floodway crossing. Grade seps of PTH 75 and potentially many other highways. 2 new 30 mile long double track signalized corridors for the main track. Expensive. New CPKC yards, etc, really expensive.

There will still be tracks heading into CentrePort, there will still be some other industrial tracks need int eh City. But for the most part, all of the main traffic will divert around the City. We can't just completely remove every spec of railways, that's not the intent of this. It's to move the bulk of through traffic out of the City.

[bomberjet]

haha fair enough. $400k ain't getting much done. It will be millions in study costs over many years.

The East St Paul route follows the existing rail line which goes next to the oil depot. And is south of the hydro corridor. So it is already a shit area located behind the million dollar houses. The Province really needs to lead this if anything were to ever get done. Which they're trying to at this point.

There is zero chance Steinbach, for example, would ever be considered. Too far away. The routes need to be the shortest possible, with the least amount of curvature. The railways will not accept a bastardization beyond the level the currently have. And generally a slight improvement will make it more palatable for the railways.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There is zero chance Steinbach, for example, would ever be considered. Too far away. The routes need to be the shortest possible, with the least amount of curvature.

That is fair but also keep in mind the yards will not be small and they could be located away from the relocation city similar to how the CN Transcona yard was originally not really part of Winnipeg. That Transcona and Winnipeg are someone continuous now is a development of roughly the last 30 years or so. Before Club Regent was built there even used to be a land gap between the two.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

The rail lines will never be moved. Too many taxes lost and the cost to move, never mind the clean up in the years afterward, is too astronomic even for consideration.

[thebasketballgeek]

Are there any precedents for such a large scale rail relocation in an inner city neighborhood somewhere in NA that the city could look at? The only thing that would be of a similar scale that I could think of is Landschaftspark in Duisburg, Germany. Visiting that place in person and it was clear it was the correct idea to convert that former industrial site into a park.

Whatever comes of the result, I believe that the environmental AND economical benefits that results from rail relocation would be greater then the current economic benefits of the rail yard as it is. Especially, if a few of those rail lines remain as grade separated rail transit. I also doubt that CN would even consider leaving the Winnipeg metro region let alone the Province if rail relocation would occur.

More importantly, I believe that rail relocation and the subsequent environmental remediation would lead to a drastic quality of live improvement for inner city residents. It seems a lot of people here focus way too much on the economy when the Winnipeg economy is quite stable and balanced as is while the quality of life is down the shitter. I doubt the rail yard is single-handedly backpacking the city’s economy, and it certainly isn’t helping the economy of the neighborhoods surrounding the rail yard.

The city needs green space, better public transportation, and more housing density in core areas. A rail relocation opens up 200 acres of land in the North End, and if we include the Weston Shops, it would add an additional 300 acres of land for all these uses. Let’s not forget the adjacent industrial areas that could be repurposed for more appropriate with its proximity to the city centre.

Do you really want me to believe the best use of these 500 acres in prime inner city real estate is best used for a bunch of rail lines? The thinking in this city has always been too small and Winnipeg can’t afford to think small when it’s growing by 20-30k residents a year.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Do you really want me to believe the best use of these 500 acres in prime inner city real estate is best used for a bunch of rail lines? The thinking in this city has always been too small and Winnipeg can’t afford to think small when it’s growing by 20-30k residents a year.

I do not think anyone is trying to argue that the CP yard and Weston shops is the best use of that land. Rather I think people are very aware that there a lot deeper issues happening in our community that would be better served with that money.

If you erase those shops and the land is fully remediated "tomorrow" that land is still in the most economically depressed and socially disadvantaged parts of the city. It is still adjacent to one of the largest Manitoba Housing developments in the city and the closest thing to "The Projects" that Winnipeg has. We have done nothing to address the long term issues of housing security, addictions, food security, MMIWGS2, truth and reconciliation, and a lot more.

Saying that land deserves a better use is blindly trying to act like it is the most prime development lot on Wellington Cres and it will never be that. We are talking more about an empty store front on Selkirk Ave. That isn't to say that it does not deserve better or that we maybe should have a larger conversation about the type and volume of freight travelling along the rail lines through the city.

This is a lot like the discussion of "open Portage and Main to pedestrians" in that it is taking comparatively tiny issue in the overall prospective of our community and trying to push it ahead of a bunch of other things claiming it will be for the greater good. We need to really step back a bit and look at a bigger picture (km) view of the community as a whole and not get caught up special interest tiny (mm) issues like this one.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I do not think anyone is trying to argue that the CP yard and Weston shops is the best use of that land. Rather I think people are very aware that there a lot deeper issues happening in our community that would be better served with that money.

If you erase those shops and the land is fully remediated "tomorrow" that land is still in the most economically depressed and socially disadvantaged parts of the city. It is still adjacent to one of the largest Manitoba Housing developments in the city and the closest thing to "The Projects" that Winnipeg has. We have done nothing to address the long term issues of housing security, addictions, food security, MMIWGS2, truth and reconciliation, and a lot more.

Saying that land deserves a better use is blindly trying to act like it is the most prime development lot on Wellington Cres and it will never be that. We are talking more about an empty store front on Selkirk Ave. That isn't to say that it does not deserve better or that we maybe should have a larger conversation about the type and volume of freight travelling along the rail lines through the city.

This is a lot like the discussion of "open Portage and Main to pedestrians" in that it is taking comparatively tiny issue in the overall prospective of our community and trying to push it ahead of a bunch of other things claiming it will be for the greater good. We need to really step back a bit and look at a bigger picture (km) view of the community as a whole and not get caught up special interest tiny (mm) issues like this one.

That and you'd effectively drive out of town one of the highest paying, union jobs in the city. I'm sure that'll help a city which struggles to attract the private investment needed to actually grow the tax base. Especially so when the average conductor/hostler is making 6 figures.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I do not think anyone is trying to argue that the CP yard and Weston shops is the best use of that land. Rather I think people are very aware that there a lot deeper issues happening in our community that would be better served with that money.

I would say it’s certainly a better use of money than extending Chief Peguis and Widening Kenaston but I digress.

Originally Posted by CoryB

If you erase those shops and the land is fully remediated "tomorrow" that land is still in the most economically depressed and socially disadvantaged parts of the city. It is still adjacent to one of the largest Manitoba Housing developments in the city and the closest thing to "The Projects" that Winnipeg has. We have done nothing to address the long term issues of housing security, addictions, food security, MMIWGS2, truth and reconciliation, and a lot more.

A lot more could be done in terms of the issues you presented, but to say nothing has been done is going over the top in criticism. The reconciliation movement in Canada has by far its strongest roots in Winnipeg, and with the Nnawi-Odena, Bay redevelopment, and you know electing an Indigenous premier I’d argue no city in the country has done more to address the issue than Winnipeg.

Originally Posted by CoryB

Saying that land deserves a better use is blindly trying to act like it is the most prime development lot on Wellington Cres and it will never be that. We are talking more about an empty store front on Selkirk Ave. That isn't to say that it does not deserve better or that we maybe should have a larger conversation about the type and volume of freight travelling along the rail lines through the city.

Well there has to be a starting point and if our premier wants to invest billions of dollars into the relocation it still means investing billions of dollars into the North End. An investment that substantial into the area will give investors more confidence to invest and spur further economic development in the surrounding area. It could lead to those storefronts in Selkirk not being so empty anymore.

Originally Posted by CoryB

This is a lot like the discussion of "open Portage and Main to pedestrians" in that it is taking comparatively tiny issue in the overall prospective of our community and trying to push it ahead of a bunch of other things claiming it will be for the greater good. We need to really step back a bit and look at a bigger picture (km) view of the community as a whole and not get caught up special interest tiny (mm) issues like this one.

I also vehemently disagree with your stance on Portage & Main but that’s an entirely separate topic.

Anyways, it’s too bad we don’t have North End residents on the forum. It would be nice to get their opinion on this. I lived in the North End for a brief period of my childhood, and during that time the Rail Yards did nothing but impede my ability to travel around the city, and I couldn’t think of a single thing it did to enhance my family’s quality of life.

I think the bigger picture is the fact the rail relocation is a signal from the city and province that something needs to be done about the North End and this is the big ticket project that could lead to a re-election if successful.

[bodaggin]

Rail Relocation Myths:

-CP would flee Winnipeg for Calgary Ogden.

Have you seen Ogden yards? They're maxed out. No expansion room. You can't fit 400acres of Winnipeg yards there.


-CP would leave MB at all

Skilled labor doesn't appear from thin air. A short move to Rosser etc means the same labour pool.



RailCo's would not want longer distance bypass routes.

Rural rail speed limits are 60-80mph. Current city routes are limited to 35-50mph. A longer route at higher speed is still faster for railcos.



Relocation would be expensive for City of Winnipeg

It would cost City Of Winnipeg $0. The only money CoW would pay is for either acquiring ownership or priority LRT rights on the existing city rail lines. And this would be exponentially cheaper than building LRT from scratch.

City Of Winnipeg wins any way this is looked at. The Province and RailCo's are a different story.



City Of Winnipeg would lose tax revenue if CP yards leave

CP yards are assessed at only $30m (tax assessment). For what, 400acres? Medium or high-density housing would earn the city an order of magnitude more property tax revenue.



Local manufacturers would lose their spurs and rail access

They wouldn't. Local freight traffic is minimal, 10% of total city traffic. The through and yard traffic is current 90 percentile. Inner city lines would be converted to LRT priority usage. Local freight spurs would still have access in between the gaps and easily co-exist with LRT.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Rail Relocation Myths:

-CP would flee Winnipeg for Calgary Ogden.

Have you seen Ogden yards? They're maxed out. No expansion room. You can't fit 400acres of Winnipeg yards there.


-CP would leave MB at all

Skilled labor doesn't appear from thin air. A short move to Rosser etc means the same labour pool.



RailCo's would not want longer distance bypass routes.

Rural rail speed limits are 60-80mph. Current city routes are limited to 35-50mph. A longer route at higher speed is still faster for railcos.



Relocation would be expensive for City of Winnipeg

It would cost City Of Winnipeg $0. The only money CoW would pay is for either acquiring ownership or priority LRT rights on the existing city rail lines. And this would be exponentially cheaper than building LRT from scratch.

City Of Winnipeg wins any way this is looked at. The Province and RailCo's are a different story.



City Of Winnipeg would lose tax revenue if CP yards leave

CP yards are assessed at only $30m (tax assessment). For what, 400acres? Medium or high-density housing would earn the city an order of magnitude more property tax revenue.



Local manufacturers would lose their spurs and rail access

They wouldn't. Local freight traffic is minimal, 10% of total city traffic. The through and yard traffic is current 90 percentile. Inner city lines would be converted to LRT priority usage. Local freight spurs would still have access in between the gaps and easily co-exist with LRT.

What does moving the yards have to do with the existing mainlines through the city? That is entirely separate and owned by more than just CP (CN, Waterworks and to a small degree BNSF). Metro rail or LRT would be cool on the highlines but it isn't a panacea, they avoid a lot of the areas people live on purpose. You'd still need billions in funding to build out service to the locations people actually live, outside of downtown of course. But even then, there are no rail lines in Central or Western downtown.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Rail Relocation Myths:

RailCo's would not want longer distance bypass routes.

Rural rail speed limits are 60-80mph. Current city routes are limited to 35-50mph. A longer route at higher speed is still faster for railcos.

This is somewhat true. In general, it's about travel times. So if you have a longer route, but travel time is similar they may be on board with that concept in principal.

But it's also about infrastructure and maintenance. They do not want an exorbitantly longer route that will require more maintenance.

So if you're basing estimates on current route being 30 miles long at 25mph travel speed. That does not equal a 72 mile long route at 60mph, even though the math equates.

[VANRIDERFAN]

I have an acquaintance who is fairly high up in the CPKC hierarchy. I’ve asked him how much this is on the company radar.

[bomberjet]

You guys want land or jobs. Pick one. You want jobs, leave the yard. Jobs will still be there, just not in the North end. We're not shooing the railways away to never never land. The whole thing would be set-up to keep them in the Winnipeg area. The railways need to be here. It is a major hub for them. They can't just move everything to Calgary. It doesn't work like that.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

You guys want land or jobs. Pick one. You want jobs, leave the yard. Jobs will still be there, just not in the North end. We're not shooing the railways away to never never land. The whole thing would be set-up to keep them in the Winnipeg area. The railways need to be here. It is a major hub for them. They can't just move everything to Calgary. It doesn't work like that.

Exactly. Never understood the argument that they'll just relocate to Calgary. The provincial government won't spend money relocating it, if its not going to stay within the province.

[bodaggin]

I re-analyzed the rail bypass (see pic), so full costing and deal structure can occur. Here's my costed deal proposal.

Assumptions:
-CP Rail Yard Current Value: ~$500m
-New CP Rail Yard Construction: ~$500m (Net 0, land arbitrage)

-New Rail Construction Cost: $10m/km per dual trackway (1 for each direction, 2 total).
-Rail Bridge over Red River: $200m (4 trackways: 2 CP, 2 CN)
-Hwy Bridge over Rail: $50m per 2-lane bridge


Construction Values:
-Total CP Rail: 65km (2 trackways, 1 each direction)
-Total CN Rail: 50km (2 trackways, 1 each direction)
-Total 2-lane Hwy over Rail bridges: 12




COST TO EACH STAKEHOLDER:

CP:
-$650m for bypass trackway - 65km of dual-trackway @ $10m/km
-$100m for Red River Bridge
-$0m for new yard, due to land arbitrage. Current yard is on higher priced land than future rural yard, absorbing virtually all cost. Old rail yards purchased by developers NOT City Of Winnipeg. Developers build high density and profit.
-PROCEEDS $750m from CoW for 75km of inner city rail lines.

CP TOTAL COST: $0


CN:
-$500m for bypass trackway - 50km of dual trackway @ $10m/km
-$100m for Red River Bridge.
-$0m for yards. CN yards do NOT need to move.
-PROCEEDS $300m from CoW for 30km of inner city rail lines.

CN TOTAL COST: $350m


Province of MB:
-$600m for Hwy-Over-Rail overpasses - 12 bridges @ $50m/2 lanes. Total 24 lanes.
-SAVINGS of $450m by closing the 3 south rail crossing across Perimeter (Oak Bluff, La Salle, St Annes). Calculated as 18 lanes of bridging @ $50m/2 lanes. Based on the ultimate 6-lane Perimeter plan.
-$50m to Richardson Elevator to relocate (Stonewall Rail Line)
-SAVINGS $150m by closing Stonewall Rail Line crossing @ Perimeter.

MB GOV TOTAL COST: $50m


City of Winnipeg:
-$300m to CN to acquire 30km of city track @ $10m/km
-$750m to CP to acquire 75km of city track @ $10m/km
-$500m for LRT stations, minor route adaptation, etc.

WINNIPEG OUT OF POCKET COST: $1.5B
Winnipeg savings vs building a $10B LRT from scratch: $8.5B



Who Wins/Loses:

Winners:
-Gov MB, and commuting drivers.
-CP Rail, all relocation costs are covered by existing inside city assets. If not excess. CP gets a new yard and more room.
-City of Winnipeg. CoW spends $1.5B for a $10B LRT system and it's already 90% pre-built. Minimal delays, cost over-runs and uncertainties.


Losers:
-CN Rail. Relocation proceeds do not entirely cover moving their rail line. A shortage of $350-400m arises.

How can their deal be sweetened? A top-up by CoW, since they're forcing the move? The CoW's massive LRT savings still allow for this. However we're now pushing $2B out of pocket for CoW. Other ideas?