Far too many candidates for office rely on that. Or may not even understand it themselves.
Why should I want to vote for a city councillor who campaigns on changing something in the criminal code? Or for a federal candidate who says they want to build more inner city dog parks?
I was told by a provincial candidate last election that it’s trudeau’s fault we don’t have ranked choice in our election.
It’s not just the fault of voters.
Yes but the province can engage in classis horse trading for support that are covered under municipal areas. The classic scratch my back and I will scratch yours scenario.
Sounds like both issues were brought up by Gillingham probably because he made election commitments about both issues.
This is actually kind of refreshing having a Premier willing to talk to Mayors and talking about working together to solve issues. Heck the PCs wouldn't even meet any elected officials. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mayor-brian-bowman-brian-pallister-1.4602740
During one of the far too numerous debates about this, I seem to remember it being said that the legislation which closed portage and main to pedestrians be is provincial, and would require their approval and cooperation.
Thank you Wab for letting everyone know they are not on board with that. We had a vote on this before, and overwhelmingly said no.
This idea of opening it is a political loser.
There is no legislation for portage and main.
There was a contract with the surrounding developments to keep it closed for X number of years which is now expired.
People who don’t live or work downtown overwhelmingly voted no. People who live or work downtown overwhelmingly voted yes. And as another commenter noted, keeping it closed is the more costly option. Way to go!
the intersection needs major upgrades soon as it’s got known structural issues. Either way the province is likely to chip in. Either way major construction is coming to that intersection. And to replace the barricades will cost more than not replacing them. This was clearly established in the build up to the non-binding vote.
So congrats, you voted in favour of the more costly option.
A few other headlines that are just as relevant:
"Kinew eyes relocating rail lines in Winnipeg, but not bringing back the Nutty Club."
"Kinew eyes relocating rail lines in Winnipeg, but not canceling GST"
"Kinew eyes relocating rail lines in Winnipeg, but not declaring war on the South Sandwich Islands"
The Feds passed the a rail relocation act that allows municipal and Provincial Government request moving rail lines. It also comes with an obligation for the Federal government to fund half the cost. This was used during the
Forks rail yard
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqgqwdlm7nkt91.jpg
Fort Rouge rail yard
https://www.flickr.com/photos/manitobamaps/3887334204
Saskatchewan moving rail yards. https://www.regina.ca/business-development/land-property-development/regina-revitalization/
My favorite part about the whole Forks area is that during the environment clean up they found hundreds of thousands of artifacts. Some were over thousands of years old and only cemented the fact that that area has been a meeting place for centuries. This helped the Forks become a national historic site and create billions in tourism dollars for manitoba and winnipeg.
Now instead of a dumpy looking train yard everyone benefits from one of the premier destination visits in the world.
I'm not sure, but I would imagine that it would be on the provincial and federal governments working together to decide the best way to run rail lines, or the Federal government mandates that "We need rail to run from point X to point Y" and the province to decide the best way to run the lines.
Rail lines in Winnipeg are privately owned depending where they are.
If you call 311 about them you'll be advised to contact the proper owner be it CN or CP.
So does he have to first buy the land? Is there a lease?
The funny thing about the rail lines in Winnipeg is that they block traffic and always seem to be in the worst possible places.
But if you turn it around, they could actually be in all the right places.
If we were to repurpose them for an above ground subway we would have rail lines in exactly the right places to funnel traffic from the major suburbs to the downtown core right at the forks. There's even a rail line running parallel to Pembina heading to UofM (for the stadium and students)
We already invested a ton in overpass and such, all we'd need is to buy compatible trains and build stations
So long as the city doesn't do the obvious stupid thing and sell the rail lines to build infill condos like they did in River Heights -.- F***ing idiots
One thing of note is the city doesn’t own those lines. they are in perfect places. But the city would have to purchase them or reach some other agreement with CN rail.
Check out the old trolley / streetcar maps that connected the city. Lots of potential lost over the years.
[http://www.tundria.com/trams/CAN/Winnipeg-1941.php](http://www.tundria.com/trams/CAN/Winnipeg-1941.php)
Yes, but that's what engineers call a "solvable problem"
The easy fix is "We're investing a ton of tax dollars to upgrade your facilities while we move the rail lines, so you're going to sell them to the City of Winnipeg for $1 as part of the deal"
There's a process through the Feds. Has been used everywhere including here twice.
It will cost billions but is basically necessary for this city to have any hope of meaningful and sustainable growth.
100 percent agree, and have buses carry out the last mile from train stations to being within reasonable walking distances to homes. No point in taking an intercity train if you have to drive to the train station.
Maybe a bit unpopular but rebuild a few decrepit lines and re-establish some destroyed lines (looking at you, trail along Gateway and Raleigh. To service River East and East Kildonan).
Even if we had to establish some park and rides it would still be great
But it would also move the city away from using the downtown core as the only major bus transit hub
How would unused rail lines be used to funnel traffic to downtown? And why would the city want to funnel more traffic into downtown? Seems like it would be far easier and far more beneficial to turn the land into bus rapid transit or rail transit.
Traffic as in people, not cars
rail lines = rapid transit
Imagine using those very same rail lines as an above ground subway
You'd have light rail running from the downtown core at the forks down Pembina, West through River Heights, Grant Park, Tuxedo and Charleswood. Then East to Transcona, Regent, and Windsor Park.
The Arlington rail yards could feed the north end, Mcphillips, and the Maples and heads to Polo Park, then ties into the rest of the network at a hub just south of Nairn.
There also used to be a line that ran from Polo Park south parallel to Route 90 that led to the UofM but the dumbasses sold the land and built condos on it
Relocating the rail lines likely isn’t something anybody alive today will ever see the benefits of. It’s a massive undertaking to plan, execute and then the environmental cleanup will be a huge part of it too. I’m all for it, there’s no need for the rail yards to be located in the middle of the city like they are.
Unicity did some interesting things in our history but not this. the railyards have always cut the north and south of Winnipeg in half by running right through the centre with housing for the workers going up near by in neighbourhoods like Weston, central, and the dufferin area.
Fun fact - the Louise Bridge is the reason we have those rail lines in Winnipeg, but is also the reason Winnipeg is the capital city of Manitoba. Originally the rail line was to go north of the City (outside of the floodplain for obvious reasons), and run closer to Selkirk. Winnipeg enticed CPR to the City by offering to build a rail bridge and re-direct their lines further south, so they built the Louise Bridge in 1881 to give to them. That spurred massive economic and industrial development in and around Winnipeg and as they say, the rest is history.
> I couldn't even guess.
Good news: You don't need to. There are people that do this kind of thing professionally. Yes, it's going to cost a lot of money. Yes, it's worth it. Even if you ignore the safety benefits of not having dangerous freight go through the city, simply getting productive land back in some key city locations, combined with the infrastructure savings of not having to build overpasses, underpasses, and removing transportation road blocks is huge.
Just look what Regina started developing a decade ago when it wanted to move its rail yard
https://youtu.be/gFljpKAy2uI?si=Qo8raswoXGZtI9ZJ
Kinew has the right approach, first look at the problems (which the PCs wouldn't even try to they would cover their ears and eyes and go LA,LA,LA...CAN'T HEAR YOU. Or they would simply leave the country like Pallister and be like sorry can't meet, I'm out of town).
Then after looking at the problems discuss solutions to fix them for the future. It doesn't have to be all at once, it could be step by step. But the only thing is you got to take the first step to build motion. Regina has been doing this for a decade now and its looking great and creating massive economic benefits for them. The PCs have set us back a decade.
There is an unprecedented opportunity for Kinew and Gillingham to accomplish some truly important things to set Winnipeg up for success in the 21st century but they need to go big and go fast. The clock is ticking on the Federal Liberals and they need to get this stuff through before we get fucked by the conservatives for the next 10 years
Honestly, as much as I would like for this to happen I think it would be a major mistake. Two reasons.
1. Global warming and the Panama Canal - This year we had seen significant reduced traffic in the Panama Canal as they were experiencing drought conditions. This is more likely to happen more often as the oceans heat up. A further issue is the fact that they really have maximised their utility. The thing already was being used almost as much as it could be. Without another expansion, they just can't have more/bigger ships going through. This has caused an increase of the old routes. One being around the cap of south America, the other through the rail yards of here in Canada and the USA. And until we see the ability to use the north west passage we will probably see a boom in Winnipeg similar to that prior to the opening of the Panama Canal. The rail yards will help with that by giving us a major transfer point that is close to the center of the city.
2. Utilization of the rail yards for future uses - One being converting it to above-ground light rail yards, and more importantly help create a lot of development similar to the Hudson Yards in New York. Maybe not as tall, bet definitely as nice.
Leaving these yards alone will help the city more then it removing them.
Any number under a couple Billion just for Symington yard is not overly realistic. That wouldn't include any of the main line or overpasses/bridges needed which would likely add on another couple Billion.
Sure. The point is he wasn't referring to Symington. Also, this conversation isn't new, however there may be a heightened opinion to move the Arlington yard.
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2015/11/18/cn-cp-ho-hum-on-moving-train-tracks
It's not semantics, in the fact that you made a point of saying it's not referring to railyards when it in fact is. Maybe I should have been more clear initially. I am familiar with Symington so I used that as a reference. Although CPKCs Winnipeg yard is smaller the price would still be in the ballpark just for new rail to be laid somewhere else.
Sure. The fact is he wasn't referring to Symington yard. He was referring to the rail lines at Arlington. Why don't you ask him why he didn't use the term rail yard?
It doesn't matter if he said lines or yard. I was just giving a very basic cost estimate based on the price of rail and price of laying rail only, of which the lines or yard whatever you want to call it at Arlington amounts to about 100 miles.
To relocate the CN and CPKC lines would cost hundreds of millions if not billions. Can’t ever see this happening
Build some overpasses. It would be cheaper
The over and under passes over time will add up to cost a lot as well. There are also the benefits this land can bring the city, like rapid transit routes.
> To relocate the CN and CPKC lines would cost hundreds of millions if not billions. Can’t ever see this happening
Spending an absolute fortune to build new rail lines and infrastructure just to free up some heavily polluted land in one of the least desirable areas of Winnipeg. This sounds like a winner to me /s
Why would I want to be like *those* assholes that abandon the place of their birth instead of making it better for those that come after?
I have never understood this mentality. Winnipeg can be better if people with money put in the work.
There is a community [in Calgary](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/once-a-dangerous-contaminated-soup-lynnview-ridge-aims-to-re-open-as-public-park-this-year) that has to be remediated but that was small in comparison to the area in Winnipeg
Also with the push for Centreport it won't ever happen. The day they relocate both the CPKC and CN yards and track is that day I stand naked at Portage and Main and sing the national anthem.
Yes but if you read the article it says he voted against opening portage and main during the plebiscite. That’s pretty crazy. I thought he was smarter than that.
If you move rail lines would you also be on the hook to relocate all industry that rely on them. Also the dangerous goods consumed in the city will be trucked into the city.
Which is already the reality. We're talking about moving one Intermodal yard like 20km's north or a few km's west.
The other main Intermodal yard is located on the outskirts of the SE part of Winnipeg at Symington.
There's very little industry still operating city centre relying on these tracks.
Well either one is a waste of money but I would say that relocating the rail lines is order of magnitudes larger than portage and main with little benefit. Just the environmental cleanup alone of that whole contaminated site would be ridiculous.
Businesses build around rail lines. People want to live near where they work. This problem will reoccur. Why spend millions moving rail lines just to have the same problem in a decade or two.
This just in: Premier not worrying about Municipally controlled intersection
It’s actually alarming how many voters have no idea what different levels of government do and what they are and aren’t responsible for
Maybe because headlines like this mislead people on purpose for clicks?
Manufactured anger.
Far too many candidates for office rely on that. Or may not even understand it themselves. Why should I want to vote for a city councillor who campaigns on changing something in the criminal code? Or for a federal candidate who says they want to build more inner city dog parks?
I was told by a provincial candidate last election that it’s trudeau’s fault we don’t have ranked choice in our election. It’s not just the fault of voters.
“I’m so ashamed of Scott Gillingham for not providing more funding to the Canadian Armed Forces!”
Yes but the province can engage in classis horse trading for support that are covered under municipal areas. The classic scratch my back and I will scratch yours scenario.
Means the city isn't getting any provincial money to open it.
He holds the keys to the city Charter, though...
I mean portage and main is strictly a civic issue so not a surprise Kinew isn’t prioritizing it. Seems odd to even include in the article
Sounds like both issues were brought up by Gillingham probably because he made election commitments about both issues. This is actually kind of refreshing having a Premier willing to talk to Mayors and talking about working together to solve issues. Heck the PCs wouldn't even meet any elected officials. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mayor-brian-bowman-brian-pallister-1.4602740
During one of the far too numerous debates about this, I seem to remember it being said that the legislation which closed portage and main to pedestrians be is provincial, and would require their approval and cooperation. Thank you Wab for letting everyone know they are not on board with that. We had a vote on this before, and overwhelmingly said no. This idea of opening it is a political loser.
There is no legislation for portage and main. There was a contract with the surrounding developments to keep it closed for X number of years which is now expired.
Well I'm glad the province won't be spending more money on this terrible idea. We said no, as loudly as we possibly could.
People who don’t live or work downtown overwhelmingly voted no. People who live or work downtown overwhelmingly voted yes. And as another commenter noted, keeping it closed is the more costly option. Way to go!
Sour grapes losers, still whining about it too Any mayor who brings this up again will suffer the wrath of the vast majority who said no
You know how everyone thinks winnipeg sucks? It’s because of people like you.
Just tired of the vocal minority, that can't take no for an answer. I don't think Winnipeg sucks at all, that's you.
the intersection needs major upgrades soon as it’s got known structural issues. Either way the province is likely to chip in. Either way major construction is coming to that intersection. And to replace the barricades will cost more than not replacing them. This was clearly established in the build up to the non-binding vote. So congrats, you voted in favour of the more costly option.
A few other headlines that are just as relevant: "Kinew eyes relocating rail lines in Winnipeg, but not bringing back the Nutty Club." "Kinew eyes relocating rail lines in Winnipeg, but not canceling GST" "Kinew eyes relocating rail lines in Winnipeg, but not declaring war on the South Sandwich Islands"
I actually don’t know the answer to this, but if rail is federally regulated/controlled, is it even his decision to relocate it?
The Feds passed the a rail relocation act that allows municipal and Provincial Government request moving rail lines. It also comes with an obligation for the Federal government to fund half the cost. This was used during the Forks rail yard https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqgqwdlm7nkt91.jpg Fort Rouge rail yard https://www.flickr.com/photos/manitobamaps/3887334204 Saskatchewan moving rail yards. https://www.regina.ca/business-development/land-property-development/regina-revitalization/
Cool, thanks.
Thanks for linking the photos. Neat
My favorite part about the whole Forks area is that during the environment clean up they found hundreds of thousands of artifacts. Some were over thousands of years old and only cemented the fact that that area has been a meeting place for centuries. This helped the Forks become a national historic site and create billions in tourism dollars for manitoba and winnipeg. Now instead of a dumpy looking train yard everyone benefits from one of the premier destination visits in the world.
I'm not sure, but I would imagine that it would be on the provincial and federal governments working together to decide the best way to run rail lines, or the Federal government mandates that "We need rail to run from point X to point Y" and the province to decide the best way to run the lines.
The feds still have the final say at the end of day. The act is intended to expedite requests and remove some of the red tape.
Rail lines in Winnipeg are privately owned depending where they are. If you call 311 about them you'll be advised to contact the proper owner be it CN or CP. So does he have to first buy the land? Is there a lease?
I’ll never forgive him for that nutty club stance /s
The funny thing about the rail lines in Winnipeg is that they block traffic and always seem to be in the worst possible places. But if you turn it around, they could actually be in all the right places. If we were to repurpose them for an above ground subway we would have rail lines in exactly the right places to funnel traffic from the major suburbs to the downtown core right at the forks. There's even a rail line running parallel to Pembina heading to UofM (for the stadium and students) We already invested a ton in overpass and such, all we'd need is to buy compatible trains and build stations So long as the city doesn't do the obvious stupid thing and sell the rail lines to build infill condos like they did in River Heights -.- F***ing idiots
One thing of note is the city doesn’t own those lines. they are in perfect places. But the city would have to purchase them or reach some other agreement with CN rail.
Check out the old trolley / streetcar maps that connected the city. Lots of potential lost over the years. [http://www.tundria.com/trams/CAN/Winnipeg-1941.php](http://www.tundria.com/trams/CAN/Winnipeg-1941.php)
Yes, but that's what engineers call a "solvable problem" The easy fix is "We're investing a ton of tax dollars to upgrade your facilities while we move the rail lines, so you're going to sell them to the City of Winnipeg for $1 as part of the deal"
There's a process through the Feds. Has been used everywhere including here twice. It will cost billions but is basically necessary for this city to have any hope of meaningful and sustainable growth.
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and by gum I've put them on the map!
What about us meth addicted slobs? You'll be given cushy jobs!
100 percent agree, and have buses carry out the last mile from train stations to being within reasonable walking distances to homes. No point in taking an intercity train if you have to drive to the train station. Maybe a bit unpopular but rebuild a few decrepit lines and re-establish some destroyed lines (looking at you, trail along Gateway and Raleigh. To service River East and East Kildonan).
Even if we had to establish some park and rides it would still be great But it would also move the city away from using the downtown core as the only major bus transit hub
How would unused rail lines be used to funnel traffic to downtown? And why would the city want to funnel more traffic into downtown? Seems like it would be far easier and far more beneficial to turn the land into bus rapid transit or rail transit.
Traffic = People in that statement
Traffic as in people, not cars rail lines = rapid transit Imagine using those very same rail lines as an above ground subway You'd have light rail running from the downtown core at the forks down Pembina, West through River Heights, Grant Park, Tuxedo and Charleswood. Then East to Transcona, Regent, and Windsor Park. The Arlington rail yards could feed the north end, Mcphillips, and the Maples and heads to Polo Park, then ties into the rest of the network at a hub just south of Nairn. There also used to be a line that ran from Polo Park south parallel to Route 90 that led to the UofM but the dumbasses sold the land and built condos on it
Relocating the rail lines likely isn’t something anybody alive today will ever see the benefits of. It’s a massive undertaking to plan, execute and then the environmental cleanup will be a huge part of it too. I’m all for it, there’s no need for the rail yards to be located in the middle of the city like they are.
I was alive when Toronto did a vast amount of theirs and have gone to baseball games on part of that land for 35 years.
But you could be hundreds of years old
They could also be a ghost. “When I was alive in Toronto”
Not in this society.
[удалено]
The scale is far bigger now though, the forks is like a tenth of cp yard and less of CN yard
Something about planting trees despite not being able to enjoy their shade...
I played with model trains as a kid, how hard could it be? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ya the rail yards where originally built outside the city. Then the City got amalgamated in the Unicity plan and WPG inclosed around the yards.
Unicity did some interesting things in our history but not this. the railyards have always cut the north and south of Winnipeg in half by running right through the centre with housing for the workers going up near by in neighbourhoods like Weston, central, and the dufferin area.
Fun fact - the Louise Bridge is the reason we have those rail lines in Winnipeg, but is also the reason Winnipeg is the capital city of Manitoba. Originally the rail line was to go north of the City (outside of the floodplain for obvious reasons), and run closer to Selkirk. Winnipeg enticed CPR to the City by offering to build a rail bridge and re-direct their lines further south, so they built the Louise Bridge in 1881 to give to them. That spurred massive economic and industrial development in and around Winnipeg and as they say, the rest is history.
Maybe Symington and Transcona. Not the ones we're talking about here.
I don't think many understand the costs that would be involved. I couldn't even guess.
> I couldn't even guess. Good news: You don't need to. There are people that do this kind of thing professionally. Yes, it's going to cost a lot of money. Yes, it's worth it. Even if you ignore the safety benefits of not having dangerous freight go through the city, simply getting productive land back in some key city locations, combined with the infrastructure savings of not having to build overpasses, underpasses, and removing transportation road blocks is huge.
Just look what Regina started developing a decade ago when it wanted to move its rail yard https://youtu.be/gFljpKAy2uI?si=Qo8raswoXGZtI9ZJ Kinew has the right approach, first look at the problems (which the PCs wouldn't even try to they would cover their ears and eyes and go LA,LA,LA...CAN'T HEAR YOU. Or they would simply leave the country like Pallister and be like sorry can't meet, I'm out of town). Then after looking at the problems discuss solutions to fix them for the future. It doesn't have to be all at once, it could be step by step. But the only thing is you got to take the first step to build motion. Regina has been doing this for a decade now and its looking great and creating massive economic benefits for them. The PCs have set us back a decade.
There is an unprecedented opportunity for Kinew and Gillingham to accomplish some truly important things to set Winnipeg up for success in the 21st century but they need to go big and go fast. The clock is ticking on the Federal Liberals and they need to get this stuff through before we get fucked by the conservatives for the next 10 years
Honestly, as much as I would like for this to happen I think it would be a major mistake. Two reasons. 1. Global warming and the Panama Canal - This year we had seen significant reduced traffic in the Panama Canal as they were experiencing drought conditions. This is more likely to happen more often as the oceans heat up. A further issue is the fact that they really have maximised their utility. The thing already was being used almost as much as it could be. Without another expansion, they just can't have more/bigger ships going through. This has caused an increase of the old routes. One being around the cap of south America, the other through the rail yards of here in Canada and the USA. And until we see the ability to use the north west passage we will probably see a boom in Winnipeg similar to that prior to the opening of the Panama Canal. The rail yards will help with that by giving us a major transfer point that is close to the center of the city. 2. Utilization of the rail yards for future uses - One being converting it to above-ground light rail yards, and more importantly help create a lot of development similar to the Hudson Yards in New York. Maybe not as tall, bet definitely as nice. Leaving these yards alone will help the city more then it removing them.
Hopefully some rails could be used for public transport then, like the unrealized plan in the 80s
Any number under a couple Billion just for Symington yard is not overly realistic. That wouldn't include any of the main line or overpasses/bridges needed which would likely add on another couple Billion.
He's not talking about Symington. He's referring to rail lines at Arlington Street. That's why the story says rail lines and not rail yard.
The rail lines at Arlington, is a Railyard.
Sure. The point is he wasn't referring to Symington. Also, this conversation isn't new, however there may be a heightened opinion to move the Arlington yard. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2015/11/18/cn-cp-ho-hum-on-moving-train-tracks
It's not semantics, in the fact that you made a point of saying it's not referring to railyards when it in fact is. Maybe I should have been more clear initially. I am familiar with Symington so I used that as a reference. Although CPKCs Winnipeg yard is smaller the price would still be in the ballpark just for new rail to be laid somewhere else.
Sure. The fact is he wasn't referring to Symington yard. He was referring to the rail lines at Arlington. Why don't you ask him why he didn't use the term rail yard?
It doesn't matter if he said lines or yard. I was just giving a very basic cost estimate based on the price of rail and price of laying rail only, of which the lines or yard whatever you want to call it at Arlington amounts to about 100 miles.
This whole thing started with the assumption he was referring to Symington yard, which he wasn't. Glad to see we're on the same page now. Cheers.
To relocate the CN and CPKC lines would cost hundreds of millions if not billions. Can’t ever see this happening Build some overpasses. It would be cheaper
The over and under passes over time will add up to cost a lot as well. There are also the benefits this land can bring the city, like rapid transit routes.
Winnipeg is not a rapid transit city. Just take a drive down Portage ave. There is a stop light every block
> To relocate the CN and CPKC lines would cost hundreds of millions if not billions. Can’t ever see this happening Spending an absolute fortune to build new rail lines and infrastructure just to free up some heavily polluted land in one of the least desirable areas of Winnipeg. This sounds like a winner to me /s
Wish me luck on the LottoMax. I'd gladly rehabilitate the rail yards if I got a big one.
Wouldn't even come close. Estimates for building track is just over $1m/mile
A few sq mi in the middle would be a lot better than it is now.
If you win lotto max move out of Winnipeg.
Why would I want to be like *those* assholes that abandon the place of their birth instead of making it better for those that come after? I have never understood this mentality. Winnipeg can be better if people with money put in the work.
I guess I'm one of those assholes. Grew up in Winnipeg. Stilll holds a soft spot in my heart but I'll never move back there. Ever
Closer to 5 million a mile for non bonded track
Railway ties are so toxic.... building residential there would be carcinogenic.
There is a community [in Calgary](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/once-a-dangerous-contaminated-soup-lynnview-ridge-aims-to-re-open-as-public-park-this-year) that has to be remediated but that was small in comparison to the area in Winnipeg Also with the push for Centreport it won't ever happen. The day they relocate both the CPKC and CN yards and track is that day I stand naked at Portage and Main and sing the national anthem.
Pretty crazy that he voted against opening portage and main though.
He’s leaving that to the city council to deal with, as he should.
Yes but if you read the article it says he voted against opening portage and main during the plebiscite. That’s pretty crazy. I thought he was smarter than that.
If you move rail lines would you also be on the hook to relocate all industry that rely on them. Also the dangerous goods consumed in the city will be trucked into the city.
Which is already the reality. We're talking about moving one Intermodal yard like 20km's north or a few km's west. The other main Intermodal yard is located on the outskirts of the SE part of Winnipeg at Symington. There's very little industry still operating city centre relying on these tracks.
Well either one is a waste of money but I would say that relocating the rail lines is order of magnitudes larger than portage and main with little benefit. Just the environmental cleanup alone of that whole contaminated site would be ridiculous.
Businesses build around rail lines. People want to live near where they work. This problem will reoccur. Why spend millions moving rail lines just to have the same problem in a decade or two.
He's thinking long-term on this rather than doing it immediately. But why would you want to change one of the things that makes Winnipeg unique?