Rail relocation Winnipeg

[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.

[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.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

What does moving the yards have to do with the existing mainlines through the city?

Negating the need for inner city overpasses, reducing rail traffic, and converting to LRT. Fair premise challenge. Reciprocated: What is the point in moving the yards?

Originally Posted by FactaNV

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.

Busses can mate to rail lines and fill in the gaps. You don't need to build rail to the exact endpoints. Rail already exists where it is so use it. Add a few small connector rails (airport, obviously). Then run catchment with busses that feed into the rail network.

The key here is we need endpoint data. Where do commutes originate and terminate. Designing any RT routes (even regular transit) must work backwards off of this data. Google is the only entity I can think of that would have this data because they track every trip you take. Not even CoW data would be accurate here. This is key for service quality.

[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.

[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.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

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.

It's not just about moving yards. In terms of safety, which is one of the other main drivers, it's the mainlines you want gone.

[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]

Zero. CPKC has been very busy with the Kansas City Southern 'merger'.

I'm currently working on another project like this. Way way smaller in scope and has legs to actually happen. CPKC is engaging and considering the proposal. CN is very difficult.

The thing in Winnipeg on CPKC radar is Arlington Bridge. It will fall down eventually so they will pressure the City to remove it.

[Carboy15]

https://imgur.com/a/VKk8Wn1

My vision for rail relocation Winnipeg. Blue represents CN Rail, Red represents CP Rail.

For my vision, I believe that the perimeter should not build grade seperations at railway crossings that are used very little. I believe that a rail bypass would be better to help with the northern Shortlines. The CP Emerson subdivision would still go through the city however, and it's that way on purpose. That's because the Emerson subdivision would link to the CP Rail park as it is a hub from the USA. CN Letellier should replace the CP La Riviere subdivision because it is a shortline, and that subdivision leads to Morris. The current CN Letellier alignment by Pembina Hwy could be replaced with (or be reserved for) LRT.
CP Emerson and CN Reddit warrant a grade seperation, which are long overdue IMO, but if they can do it after McGillvary BLVD and St Mary's interchange are finished, then it's better late than never.

[Carboy15]

Also, the shortlines on the North End of the city would be shut down and most of the services (such as elevators) would be moved towards the CP Mainline

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

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.

Yeah, we shouldn't kid ourselves as to the fact that the existing rail corridors - while they might appear to be a good solution for transit - are not in areas that make the most sense. Highline would be cool, but that would only cover one specific corridor downtown (or two if we also take the CPKC one through point douglas).

Reality is that we wouldn't be doing rail relocation for the sake of using those ROWs for transit. Good transit planning and route selection would dictate servicing the areas that are already high volume and built up. That dog-leg on the SWBRT is the biggest abomination in transit planning at the moment. We really shouldnt be speculatively building where there is no demand. But to finish the point, the whole purpose of moving rail out of the city would be 1) to free up land for development, assuming the development pressures would even dictate it 2) improve traffic flow in the city by removing at grade rail crossings, 3) improve neighbourhood cohesion between the North End and West End, and 4) (maybe) use some of the land to improve the city's road network.

Unfortunately, using existing rail lines for transit would a) still incur substantial cost to actually retrofit the existing infrastructure to use it for transit purposes, and b) would leave us stuck with transit lines that are likely not all that less expensive, but servicing areas that don't quite fit as being highest demand.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Yeah, we shouldn't kid ourselves as to the fact that the existing rail corridors - while they might appear to be a good solution for transit - are not in areas that make the most sense. Highline would be cool, but that would only cover one specific corridor downtown (or two if we also take the CPKC one through point douglas).

Reality is that we wouldn't be doing rail relocation for the sake of using those ROWs for transit. Good transit planning and route selection would dictate servicing the areas that are already high volume and built up. That dog-leg on the SWBRT is the biggest abomination in transit planning at the moment. We really shouldnt be speculatively building where there is no demand. But to finish the point, the whole purpose of moving rail out of the city would be 1) to free up land for development, assuming the development pressures would even dictate it 2) improve traffic flow in the city by removing at grade rail crossings, 3) improve neighbourhood cohesion between the North End and West End, and 4) (maybe) use some of the land to improve the city's road network.

Unfortunately, using existing rail lines for transit would a) still incur substantial cost to actually retrofit the existing infrastructure to use it for transit purposes, and b) would leave us stuck with transit lines that are likely not all that less expensive, but servicing areas that don't quite fit as being highest demand.

Totally fair. I think it's been pointed out here before but I'll reiterate, I doubt there would be many developers clamouring to develop on a massively polluted, defoliated tract of land with no services and is sandwiched between two of the poorest urban neighbourhoods in Western Canada. There are so many issues with relocating the railyards.

Inb4 people mention the Forks - that's like comparing apples to blighted potatoes, the only similarities between the two are that they were both railyards, that's where the similarities end.

[bomberjet]

The rail corridors themselves provide excellent routes for transit. They mostly bisect populated areas, are straight lines and run towards downtown.

Depending upon the type of rolling stock, Ie: diesel vs electric, is the difference. Using light rail is electric, commuter is diesel. Electric light rail is basically a full reconstruction of the corridor. Adding a second track for diesel is much easier.

[White Pine]

Just a couple of questions here, though I admit I haven't read many reports or anything regarding the subject.

1. I sometimes wonder whether there's much point relocating urban lines. It's in the way, so it gets moved out, then the city expands into it again, rinse and repeat. Wouldn't this game of cat and mouse be rather pointless? Maybe I'm thinking along the lines of faster growing cities, but generally I wonder if this is a real problem. The land outside the city, in theory, could be carte-blanche to do whatever type of development, or reserve land for transit, etc.

I do agree that if the railway DID leave, then the corridor would be a good opportunity for a transit corridor.

2. Would this have any impact on passenger rail service (ie VIA) coming into the city?

[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?

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by 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 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 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?

I think it's an overly bold idea that developers would want the land. Between the remediation, interest rates and the fact that it's sandwiched between two of the poorest urban postal codes in the country, I think they'd rather put out a campfire with their faces before buying that money pit.

[NewIreland]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

I think it's an overly bold idea that developers would want the land. Between the remediation, interest rates and the fact that it's sandwiched between two of the poorest urban postal codes in the country, I think they'd rather put out a campfire with their faces before buying that money pit.

Urban Park + LRT maintenence garage.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

I think it's an overly bold idea that developers would want the land. Between the remediation, interest rates and the fact that it's sandwiched between two of the poorest urban postal codes in the country, I think they'd rather put out a campfire with their faces before buying that money pit.

I've always found that argument absurd. Remediation, sure, 100%.

But everyone's been crying about "revitalizing downtown" and "more high density residential" and "rapid transit".

This gives you all 3. In 1 fell swoop.

It's practically downtown, it's perfect for high density residential, and would be located right on the rapid transit hub for the entire city. There's absolutely demand. The numbers for builders are incredible.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

I've always found that argument absurd. Remediation, sure, 100%.

But everyone's been crying about "revitalizing downtown" and "more high density residential" and "rapid transit".

This gives you all 3. In 1 fell swoop.

It's practically downtown, it's perfect for high density residential, and would be located right on the rapid transit hub for the entire city.

This isn't SimCity. Who is going to build it? Which companies have that much capital that isn't tied up in more profitable cities and actually wants to build in what is essentially a wasteland with no surrounding amenities minus the sliver next to the North Exchange. No one is popping down Southwood Circle next to North Point Douglas, West Alexander and the North End. It wouldn't be profitable to begin with and would attract no one at the price point it would need to be at with interest rates.