Skip to content

Relocating Railways: Careful Consideration A Must

by on August 27, 2013

“Rail relocation to outskirts of cities a win-win,” says a recently published article by Mary-Jane Bennett, a transportation consultant.

Indeed, the Lac Megantic disaster has touched off a fury of discussion about railway safety in populated areas. One viewpoint favours the outright relocation of rail lines away from urban areas; those opposed point to primarily economic considerations and question the feasibility of such an undertaking.

Bennett says that “while both sides are correct, the arguments for one do not negate the benefits for the other.”

Therein is the challenge.

 

U.S. Study Confirms Benefits of Relocating Rail

Bennett references the Texas Department of Transport, who, in 2007, conducted an eye-opening study that concluded that “the efficiency of U.S. cities and railways alike had been compromised by urban rail transportation and that rail relocation provided benefits to both.”   

The study further stated that “delays, inefficiencies, increase in emissions, and the greater likelihood of accidents at grade crossings could all be minimized by removing rail corridors from cities.”

The Texas study found that rail relocation away from populated urban areas helped in addressing operational, safety, and environmental concerns, while maintaining the economic benefit of rail service to a community.

Five different rail relocation projects were tracked in the study, including one in Marysville, Kansas, where Union Pacific’s main line operations blocked major arterial roadways for up to 14 hours a day.

A second rail relocation project in Colorado cited benefits including improved quality of life for residents in the rail relocation area, better use of available land, and improved safety.

 

Made in Canada: The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act

Bennett the points to Canada’s Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, which details two forms of financial assistance available to communities seeking to move rail lines away from their cores.

She notes that “under the first form of assistance, the Minister of Transport may authorize the payment of up to 50% of the cost of preparing an urban development plan. If the relevant province and the urban centre agree to the plan, they can apply to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) for an order permitting abandonment of rail lines, removal of structures, relocation of rail lines, elimination of crossings and all matters necessary to the rerouting.”

“A second form of financial assistance allows the agency to recommend a grant to cover up to one-half the net relocation cost. The grant is available provided the governor-in-council has set the money aside.”

 

Rail Relocations Can Have Consequences as Well as Benefits

Bennett then states that “the relocation of rail lines away from urban centres can’t only benefit a community, it can benefit a railway company.”

Unfortunately, the example Bennett uses to illustrate this point is CN Rail’s purchase of the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern line outside of Chicago in 2007.

CN subsequently rerouted operations out of the Chicago core through nearby communities, some of which found themselves negatively impacted.

This rail relocation led to the organization of a residential coalition referring to itself as “TRAC: The Regional Answer to Canadian National.” (www.fightrailcongestion.com)

TRAC countered CN’s rerouting, citing issues including local concerns over traffic gridlock, emergency response times, environmental concerns, public safety, and economic losses. This citizen’s coalition has continually persevered, demanding accountability for the impact created by this rail relocation through their communities.

 

Consider All, Benefit All

Bennett says that “Some Canadian cities could benefit from the relocation of rail yards from its core,” and that “the relocation of rail lines away from urban centres is achievable in Canada.”

I agree with Mary-Jane Bennett, and believe that such relocations could result in a positive win-win for both communities and railways.

However, choosing exactly how and where to relocate rail yards and rail lines to, in order to distance them from urban centres is another matter entirely, and one that must fully consider any potential consequences for smaller communities in outlying areas.

Just ask the people living in the outskirts of Chicago.

                                                       

                                                XXX

Sources for this blog post include:

The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act

The Vancouver Sun, August 19, 2013: “Rail Relocation to outskirts of cities a in-win”

TRAC: The Regional Answer to Canadian National (www.fightrailcongestion.com)

Advertisements
8 Comments
  1. Walter Pfefferle permalink

    Railways will gladly locate their rail yards and lines. All the cities have to do is show them the money. Talk is cheap but the railways were there before the cities and in a lot of cases because of the railways. The cities built around them so if the cities don’t want them anymore, put up the money and they will gladly move.

    • trainjane permalink

      The issue at hand is when rail relocation benefits ALL parties, including the railways. There was no suggestion that the railways should shoulder the costs alone for such undertakings; the opposite point was laid out, in fact.

      In circumstances where everyone benefits, then it is reasonable for those costs to be shared. Exactly how much each party should pay is likely best addressed on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion.

      Making matters even more complex is the issue of soil remediation in areas that have experienced some form of contamination during the course of rail operations.

      The idea here is not to put smaller railways such as your affiliated Ontario Southland Railway out of business in the process; quite the opposite, in fact. Relocating rail operations can have a very positive, and potentially profitable outcome, for railways if handled and managed well, and if circumstances warrant such consideration.

      Welcome to the world of win-win thinking, Mr. Pfefferle. We invite you onboard.

  2. Andrew permalink

    Belt railways are good, but they don’t solve every thing. This person has little concern about passenger and local freight trains. :$

    • trainjane permalink

      I think that the premise of the article was more about creating win-win, balanced solutions for both rail interests and communities, and was put forward with a knowledgeable, well-thought-out perspective…

      • Andrew permalink

        Then why was the last passenger train to down town Ottawa in 1966? :S

        • trainjane permalink

          I think the real question here is where are you getting your information from? By coincidence, my first-ever time on a passenger train just happened to be from a southern Ontario town to Ottawa to observe Parliament in session…many years after the date you state…

          • Andrew permalink

            I’m pretty sure if you did a search on the internet you will find much information and photos of Ottawa’s Union Station that the government closed in 1966. :$

            The Chateau Laurier hotel was built(by the Grand Trunk Railway) right across the street from it!

          • trainjane permalink

            Andrew, the topic of this blog is railway noise and vibration, its relationship to communities, and the reducing rail’s impact on the environment. Please stay on topic.

Comments are closed.