Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 21/9/2015 (1828 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Opinion

The Arlington Bridge originally being built to span the Nile River is one of many stories that live on in Winnipeg folklore. Its legend sits alongside Winnie the Pooh, the real James Bond, Bob Hope's first golf game and a legislative building filled with mystical secrets of the Freemasons.

Sadly however, it appears the story of the Arlington Bridge will soon be lost to us.

The city recently announced that after more than a century of spanning Winnipeg's central rail yard, the familiar silver structure with its steep ramps and skyline views is scheduled to be taken down and sold for scrap.

This weekend, a public open house was held to present the options for its replacement.

Beginning in 2020, a new two- or three-lane structure with bike and pedestrian accommodation will begin construction, likely adjacent to the existing bridge. Design options are being considered to give the new crossing a look that is as distinctive as the current bridge.

A second-phase development calls for a new rail-yard crossing that will increase vehicular capacity by more than 40 per cent in the long term. Two options being looked at are: a major expansion of the McPhillips Street underpass and a new 800-metre-long underground tunnel connecting Sherbrook and McGregor streets.

This project coincides with recent announcements of two other significant roadway developments made necessary by rail-line intersections -- a $175-million underpass at Waverley Street and a $250-million underpass at Marion Street.

A budget has not been outlined for the Arlington work, but considering its scale it is not unreasonable to think the combined cost of all three rail-related projects could approach $1-billion.

The displays at the Arlington Bridge open house clearly indicated the current study will not consider the idea of moving the rail yards as a solution.

The knee-jerk reaction to the relocation question has always been the expense would be prohibitive, but in the face of staggering costs for only three railway crossings, ignoring that option in a growing city has become an unreasonable position. It would be irresponsible to move ahead with these expenditures without a clear analysis of the relocation option to inform our decisions as a community going forward.

The first study to relocate the city's rail lines was done in 1970. At the time, the cost of moving the main lines and the Canadian Pacific Railway yards was estimated at $75 million. It would be much more expensive today, but without any real data, we can only look to examples from other cities to understand the scale of the proposition.

The most comparable study done that relates to Winnipeg's current condition was completed in 2007 by the City of Denver. Like Winnipeg, the American city is home to two large rail companies with yards and tracks that have dissected it for more than a century.

The Colorado capitol's proposal looked at consolidating the two main lines into a single freight corridor that would bypass the city with 150 kilometres of new track and two replacement terminal facilities built in rural areas. In total, 180 hectares of rail yard would be replaced, a similar size to the CPR yards in Winnipeg. Two independent sources pegged the cost at approximately US$1.2 billion.

The study concluded implementing the project would result in an economic benefit of more than US$5 billion across several sectors of the economy.

The state would realize job creation indirectly valued at more than US$2.8 billion over the life of the project -- much of that growth occurring in less-affluent rural areas. Other important economic benefits would come from: the redevelopment of urban rail yards into mixed-use neighbourhoods, the transformation of existing lines into active transportation and rapid-transit corridors, improved railroad operating efficiency, reduced travel delays and the elimination of the capital cost of new, grade-separated crossings.

It was highlighted that, by opening up new land, Denver would realize important benefits from infill development that would allow the city to grow without increasing urban sprawl and the strain low-density perimeter expansion places on civic services and infrastructure.

Quality-of-life benefits to the citizens of Denver would include lower noise, air and ground pollution, improved vehicular circulation as well as reduced risk of vehicle-train accidents and derailments.

Following the devastating 2013 derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Que., Canadian cities are experiencing new economic effects from urban rail lines that would be factored into any similar analysis done in this country. In reaction to the incident, most major cities, including Winnipeg, are adopting strict new development bylaws that are burdening owners of property near rail lines with the significant cost of creating large no-build zones that include crash berms and impact-absorbing concrete walls.

In Winnipeg, residential development at The Forks, along Main Street and on rail-adjacent properties will be significantly affected by these new regulations, making development a far greater challenge.

With the extreme cost of creating grade-separated crossings becoming apparent, compounded by the challenges of these new development regulations, the level of investment required to relocate rail lines indicated in the Denver study (with corroborative findings in a similar Chicago study) appears to make it a reasonable solution to consider.

It would seem imperative Winnipeg ends the speculative debate and finally moves towards understanding the real costs of rail relocation.

The tools for the city to pursue the idea exist under the federal Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, which provides a financial contribution of up to 50 per cent toward the cost of preparing an urban development plan. Under the act, a grant becomes available from the Canadian Transportation Agency to fund up to half the cost of implementing a completed and approved strategy.

The storied Arlington Bridge has proudly carried Winnipeggers across the rail yards for 105 years. If it must be demolished, a fitting end would be as the catalyst that empowered Winnipeg to finally make the courageous and transformational decision to relocate the rail lines and propel our city into a prosperous future.

Brent Bellamy is creative director at Number Ten Architectural Group.

bbellamy@numberten.com