Rail relocation

 

I can't get through a news article without wanting to react so I'm here to exorcise my need to opine. 

"The NDP government has retained former federal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy to lead an ambitious, two-year study into the relocation of rail lines and yards that currently occupy high-value property in Winnipeg’s core, the Free Press has learned.

"Sources confirmed Premier Wab Kinew will announce Axworthy’s appointment on Tuesday."

It's frustrating to see projects become political footballs and thus take 10 times as long to get done as need be. Do we need endless studies? Isn't it clear that this now secondary rail yard isn't needed in the centre of the city anymore and that its presence actually harms the city?

I'm shocked and frustrated that all the handwringing about replacing the Arlington Bridge has not yet to my awareness raised the subject of rail relocation! Why are we planning to build a very expensive bridge with an extremely long span when we could instead use some of that budget to move rail lines and then build either a much shorter (and thus less complicated and expensive) bridge, or possibly even not need a bridge at all but only a road connecting the North End to the West End?   

The reference to relocating spur lines, however, worries me. Parallel to Kenaston (death to cyclists), only a few blocks over, there used to be a wonderful spur line that would have been perfect for a much needed north-south active transportation path, so there would be a highway for cyclists and pedestrians to move easily through the city without getting driven over by impatient motorists acting with impunity. But no, in a city that needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to agree to even a single infill site, somehow the one thing you shouldn't build infill on -- old rail lines that provide fantastic corridor options for tram lines, busways, cycle paths, etc. -- was very quickly built up with infill housing. 

I fear the same with this rail relocation plan when it comes to spur lines. 

I also fear what happened to Edmonton where the train station has been moved out by the airport, nearly an hour's drive out of town, making it even more inconvenient to take the train than it already is.  

The article goes on to say that although NDP premier Greg Selinger was looking into a rail relocation plan, Conservative premier Brian Pallister had no interest in a plan that would cost up to $1billion dollars. I shake my head at how no one even blinks at expanding Kenaston (worse than unnecessary: adding lanes to address congestion has been proven time and again to fail to achieve its goal) for... you guessed it... $1billion. 

$1billion looks so much different depending on who you are spending it on, you see. 

And it's nothing to spend 100s of millions on consultants fees over and over and over again before a project can even begin to become real enough to start planning for. Granted, this probably significantly overvalues the contributions university students can make, but... what if instead of paying a professional consultant $200 million to blow smoke, we just got university students in planning and engineering departments to do it for free, and, thus inspired by grandiose visions, we just buckled down to real brass tacks and got it done?

Okay, reading on, I finally see what I needed to hear:

"Axworthy and Finnegan noted that although relocation was an expensive proposition, it could actually save the city billions of dollars in the long run. For example, the relocation of rail lines and the Canadian Pacific Railways yards in downtown Winnipeg would relieve the city of the need to rebuild the Arlington Bridge at an estimated cost of more than $200 million."

And with this brain dump, I will retire. This is probably far too raw to publish but I'm going to do it anyway and come back and revise it in the future.