Detail script for 01 / EXEC SUMMARY OF WEBSITE:

Typical perimeter rail line

Many Curves – this at 24 Ave

LINKS:

Railway Relocation and Crossing Act [updated March 2026] – Click Here

Reports #1 to #10 – Click Here

The route to success with a Rail Relocation in Canada is well outlined in many rail organization newsletters. Most importantly, nearly all of these outline the relevance of the updated Railway Relocation and Crossing Act (updated March 2026). This Act not only provides the end-point legal pathway for relocation, but also defines eligibility for federal funding—typically up to 50% of capital expenditures, with additional contributions expected from provincial, municipal, and First Nations partners.

Initially welcomed by residents when constructed in 1909, the BNSF shoreline rail line became increasingly problematic over time. By the 1950s, relocation efforts had already begun. Numerous advocacy attempts followed, but lacked the momentum to achieve a full feasibility study — until White Rock Mayor Wayne Baldwin and Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts launched renewed political action in 2013.
Advocacy accelerated between 2014 and 2020, including direct meetings with BNSF in Seattle, increased citizen awareness regarding coal transport, and creation of the informational website from which these cards originate. By 2020, all levels of government — federal, provincial, municipal, and First Nations — supported proceeding to a feasibility study. See newsletters July 2020 and October 2020. Unfortunately, Covid-19 halted progress, but 2026 now presents a renewed opportunity to advance this initiative with new political actors and community advocates.
This volunteer group of professionals calls itself Advocates for BNSF Rail Relocation.
The primary goal since 2014 has been initiating the feasibility study, which is required before applying to the Canadian Transportation Agency under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act.

This website is current to May 2026.

Print friendly PDF

Detail Script for 02 / HISTORICAL CONTEXT

WR – SS Railroad at turn of Century = BC Museum

WR-SS Railroad 2010 = long, heavy, frequent

WR–SS Railroad; 1909 to present :

1909: First trains ran through Semiahmoo First Nation, White Rock, and Crescent Beach. Freight consisted mostly of lumber, oysters, and other low-toxicity cargo. Passenger rail was active and culturally significant.

1910–2010: Freight increased slowly; toxicity levels of cargo largely undocumented.

2016–2018: Freight volume and toxicity escalated sharply.

- 15–20 trains per day
- 100–140 cars per train (2.4 km)
- Northbound: Powder River coal, Bakken crude oil
- Southbound: mixed freight including hazardous chemicals
2030 and beyond: Freight volumes expected to grow further, making this route the major BC–Washington economic corridor.
- Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 03 / PRESENT SITUATION

Long train entering Crescent Beach from the North

Long train exiting White Rock to the South

LINKS:

Undesired Emergency Events (UDEs) – Click Here

City Surrey CFAS studies – Click Here

Safety Concerns

Undesired Emergency Events (UDEs)
Slope instability and soil slides
Rising ocean levels and storm surge reaching track level
Mechanical failures
Emergency-access disruptions
Trespassing and public-safety conflicts

Economic Concerns

Vulnerability of the BC–WA freight corridor
Limitations and probable closure of Sumas–Abbotsford alternative
Opportunity to integrate freight relocation with high-speed rail
Gateway infrastructure alignment and federal/provincial funding opportunities

Environmental Concerns

Climate-driven sea-level rise (City Surrey CPAC studies)
Coastal erosion and shoreline degradation
Habitat loss and ecological instability

Public and Political Momentum

Citizen advocacy since 2013
Multiple public forums (notably 2018, White Rock)
High community engagement and support
Strong municipal, provincial, federal, and First Nations alignment prior to COVID-19

Next Action: The Feasibility Study

Engineering details of the Highway 99 alignment
Tunnel/trench/surface options
Urban-development impacts
Capital cost estimates
Economic/operational outcomes
Integration with high-speed rail

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 04 / EMERGING SAFETY CONCERNS

Distribution of UDE’s at 24^th Ave Curve

Distribution of Slides near 24^th Ave Curve

Mechanics of major slide; see Slides link here

Rail Derail on Flat Ground Feb 2019; see Derail link

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

Undesired Emergency Events (UDEs) – Click Here

Reports #1, #7, #8, #9 – Click Here

Undesired Emergency Events (UDEs)

UDEs occur when a train’s emergency brake is activated — either manually or automatically due to mechanical failure, extreme cold, slack action, or broken pipelines. UDEs can cause:

Train break-aparts
Derailments
Traffic blockages
Severe economic and safety consequences

Soil Slides

Along the 24th Ave curve, advocates documented 17 bottom of slope slides between 2015–2019.
A major slide during the passage of a long hazardous-goods train could be catastrophic.
We are gathering information regarding the possibility of a major slide [see left]

Rising Ocean Levels

Storm surge and climate-driven tide increases are causing:

Water lapping over rails north of Crescent Beach
Erosion along Semiahmoo First Nation lands
Structural instability in rail-supporting soils
See City Surrey CFAS Studies [see left]

Mechanical Issues

Derailments continue to occur across Canada and the Pacific Northwest, including several in BC between 2019 and 2023. Mechanical failures remain a persistent risk.

Trespassing

As safety barriers increase along the waterfront, dangerous behaviours such as climbing under stopped trains have also increased.

From Peace Arch News July 2018; mech. issue blocks CB access

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 05 / WHAT CAUSES DERAILMENTS?

Saskatoon Jan 2019; derailment; see Sask-link here

Field BC Feb 2019 derailment; see BC-Derail link here

Everett WA mud slide derailment in Video 2012

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

Undesired Emergency Events (UDEs) – Click Here

Transportation Safety Board – Click Here

Wikipedia = Detailed examination of Derailment causes – Click Here

Derailments occur due to a combination of environmental, mechanical, and operational factors:

1. UDE-Induced Break-Aparts

Longer, heavier trains are more prone to violent slack-action forces. An emergency brake activation can cause cars to separate or derail.

2. Soil Slides

Slides can:

• Trigger derailment if occurring beneath a moving train
• Block the track and cause sudden UDE stops
• Undermine track stability

3. Ocean-Induced Track Degradation

Wave action, storms, and sea-level rise weaken:

• Rail beds
• Bridge structures
• Shoreline foundations

4. Mechanical Failures

Even with modern inspection, failures still occur:

• Axle failures
• Joint fatigue
• Wheel defects
• Brake-system malfunctions

5. Human Error

Miscommunications, miss-alignments, improper switching, or delayed responses contribute to derailments across North America.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 06 / DERAILMENT DISASTERS

Lac Magentic July 2013; see Rail-Disaster link here

List of DOT dangerous goods

People fled Lac Magentic Rail Disaster; see TSB link here

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

Lac-Megantic 2013 disaster – Click Here

Crude Oil by Rail = the Gamble – Click Here

Mississauga Derailment 1979 – Click Here

Minot Derailment 2002 – Click Here

Everett WA mud slide derailment in Video 2012

Major loss of human life remains a significant and realistic danger on the current BNSF shoreline alignment. While advocacy efforts have long focused on safety data, derailment mechanics, and UDEs, the potential for catastrophic human impact cannot be ignored.

The 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, resulting in 50 fatalities and long-term community trauma, serves as a stark reminder of what can occur when volatile cargo derails in populated areas. Decades of litigation, cleanup, and reconstruction followed.

Oil Spillage & Explosion Risk
Bakken crude oil continues to travel northbound along this corridor. Explosive derailments — including numerous examples captured in national case studies — remain a credible risk despite improvements to tank-car design. Even with better safety protocols, unpredictability remains.

Dangerous Goods
A local advocate documented hazardous-goods placard codes along the White Rock promenade. Observed goods included flammable liquids, corrosives, inhalation hazards, and toxic materials. Updated monitoring is planned.

Chlorine Spills
Chlorine is heavier than air and spreads downward into low-lying areas. In Crescent Beach, natural human instinct would be to run toward the water — which does not provide safety from chlorine gas inhalation. The 1979 Mississauga derailment remains a notable example of large-scale evacuation due to chlorine leakage.

Ammonia Spills
Ammonia transport poses severe risk, as demonstrated by the 2002 Minot derailment (112 cars derailed; 1 dead, 95 injured), caused by joint fatigue and maintenance lapses.

Multiple derailments occur across Canada each year, often without major media attention. The shoreline corridor remains particularly vulnerable because of slope instability, tidal exposure, and the mix of hazardous cargo.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 07 / EMERGING ECONOMIC CONCERNS

Rail lines on Lower Mainland

Empty coal train entering Crescent Beach from north headed back to U.S.

Crude oil along White Rock waterfront

Report #4 – Click Here

BNSF is North America’s second-largest freight railway and plays a critical role in Canada–U.S. Pacific trade. The Semiahmoo Peninsula shoreline route connects BNSF’s U.S. network directly to the Lower Mainland, enabling access to major West Coast ports including Vancouver, Delta-port, Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland.

Key Economic Factors:

1. Growing Freight Volumes
Delta-port expansion is driving increased rail demand. Coal, crude oil, intermodal containers, and mixed freight move daily along this already constrained corridor.

2. Disruptions & Vulnerabilities

The shoreline alignment is susceptible to:

• Slides and UDEs
• Storm surge
• Mechanical blockages
• Track flooding

Disruptions affect the entire BC–Washington supply chain.

3. Inland Route Time Savings
Relocation to Highway 99 shortens travel distance and saves ~30 minutes per train, producing:

• Lower operating costs for BNSF
• Greater reliability for port operations
• Reduced congestion for Lower Mainland logistics

With 15–20 trains daily, cumulative annual savings become significant.

4. Global Port Competition
Asian trade continues to grow. Metro Vancouver must remain competitive with other West Coast ports. A resilient inland rail route is essential for protecting market share.

5. Sumas–Huntington Route
Once considered a bypass option, it is now deemed unsuitable.

• Not a mainline
• Used only for limited interchange
• Operationally constrained
• Lacking in long-term viability

The Highway 99 route remains the only scalable and economically rational path forward.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 08 / ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

Roberts Bank Corridor Crossing Projects

Example of partner funding allocation
Roberts Bank Corridor Crossing Project

Conceptual Integrating Hi-Sp with Freight

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

Gateway 2030 – Click Here

Reports #1, #2, #4 – Click Here

Canada’s Pacific Gateway Initiative prioritizes efficient international trade. Rail relocation aligns with multiple economic strategies — past, present, and future.

Gateway Infrastructure History

The original Pacific Gateway program (completed 2016) funded improvements to rail, port, road, and air infrastructure. A key example was the Roberts Bank Corridor Crossing Projects, where 11 partners collaborated to build overpasses north of the Nicomekl River.

This demonstrates that multi-party capital funding is a proven and realistic approach.

Gateway 2030 & Port Integration

A renewed Gateway initiative (2018) committed more than $200M in federal funding to regional transportation improvements. Advocates have been engaging Port Vancouver to ensure rail relocation is included in future strategy.

Capital-Sharing Potential

Likely partners include:

• Federal Government
• Province of BC
• City of Surrey
• City of White Rock
• Semiahmoo First Nation
• BNSF Railway
• Port Metro Vancouver
• Private donors

National Transportation Policy Linkage

The 2015 Emerson Report emphasized Canada’s relibance on trade, the need for reliable, resilient transportation systems, and long-term infrastructure visions. Rail relocation advances all three.

High-Speed Passenger Rail Integration

BC, Washington, and Oregon are exploring high-speed rail; relocation creates a ready-made inland corridor, an opportunity for shared engineering if timelines align, and the potential to run high-speed passenger along Highway 99 along with our initiative for re-aligned freight service.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 09 / ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Flooding in 4 US States; BNSF reroutes lines

Ex. Protecting Shorelines from further degradation

Dead birds most affected; Oil spill Alaska 1997

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

BNSF Rerouting trains in Floods – Click Here

City Surrey CFAS studies – Click Here

UN Link – Click Here

NASA link – Click Here

Climate Atlas link – Click Here

David Suzuki link – Click Here

Climate change creates direct and intensifying risks for the present shoreline rail alignment:

1.Rising Sea Levels

Coastal flooding is increasing across North America. In several U.S. states, communities are already relocating inland. BNSF itself has been forced to re-route trains due to flood events in multiple regions.

2. CFAS (Coastal Flood Adaptation Strategy)

The Province requires Pacific municipalities to develop long-term flood plans. Surrey’s CFAS includes:

Mud Bay
Crescent Beach
Semiahmoo First Nation lands

Federal funds have already been granted for early-phase adaptation.

3. Shoreline Erosion

Natural forces — waves, storms, rain, wind, and vegetation loss — gradually remove shoreline sediment; the current rail bed sits directly in an erosion zone with:

No natural buffer
Rising tidal energy
Reduced stability over time

4. Habitat Loss

Wetlands, estuaries, marshes, and coastal nurseries are critical ecological assets. Their disruption:

Reduces biodiversity
Impacts fisheries
Diminishes coastal resilience

Rail relocation protects and restores environmentally sensitive areas.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 10 / WHY IS THIS RR UNIQUE IN NA?

Comparison of Rail Relocation Routes

View north on Highway 99 ‘proposed new’

Reports #2, #4 – Click Here

Most rail relocations in North America move tracks outward around cities, increasing distance and travel time; the Semiahmoo relocation is the opposite — it shortens the route.

Why This Matters:

Operational Savings
The Highway 99 alignment saves ~30 minutes per train, translating into major cumulative operational efficiencies for BNSF and regional logistics.

Economic Advantage
Because relocation creates net savings, BNSF will be required to contribute to capital costs under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act (RRCA), which mandates that railways remain financially neutral.

Unique Funding Landscape
Typical relocations cost railways money; this one provides measurable gains.
This strengthens:

Federal funding eligibility
Cost-sharing rationale
Economic justification for all stakeholders

Precedent Cases
Traditional relocations occurred in Edmonton and Red Deer AB, will be starting soon in Hamilton, ON, fully planned in Lac-Mégantic, and moves are afoot in Regina and Saskatoon SK; in ALL these cases, there was, and is, lengthened travel time.

The Semiahmoo case stands alone because it improves safety, reduces risk, enhances economic performance, facilitates long term transportation planning, but shortens the route [key point].

It is one of the few relocations in North America where everyone benefits.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 11 / ALTERNATE INLAND ALIGNMENTS

Previous possible alignments map

Chosen rail alignment #4 saves 30 minutes on each trip

Over the decades, several inland alignment options were considered to relocate the BNSF line away from the Semiahmoo shoreline. Public meetings, engineering reviews, and municipal studies produced a series of potential routes (Alignments #1–#4 on main website).

Why Alignments #1–#3 Were Eliminated

They presented major challenges:

Required rights-of-way acquisition in both Canada and the United States
Faced significant political, legal, and community resistance
Required U.S. approvals, complicating timelines and jurisdiction
Passed through heavily developed or environmentally sensitive areas

Why Alignment #4 (Highway 99) Became the Preferred Route

Alignment #4:

Uses an existing, continuous, provincially controlled right-of-way
Requires no U.S. approvals
Minimizes community impact
Presents the simplest engineering profile
Is supported unanimously by all levels of government on the Peninsula
Provides the shortest route and largest operational efficiency for BNSF

Although diagrams show segments labeled “tunnel,” the final design may be a tunnel, trench, or surface alignment — to be determined by the feasibility study.

Sumas–Huntington Option

Once a contender, but now disfavoured because:

It is not a mainline
Has operational limitations
Is used only for interchange or temporary reroutes
Cannot support long-term freight strategy

Alignment #4 remains the only viable and scalable inland solution.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 12 / WHAT’S IN FEASIBILITY STUDY?

‘View north on Highway 99 preferred route’

Example of partner funding allocation

Roberts Bank Corridor Crossing Project

Reports #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #8 – Click Here

The feasibility study is the central next step in the relocation process. It provides the engineering, economic, environmental, and planning evidence required before any ultimate application for RR to the Canadian Transportation Agency [CTA].

Engineering Components

Exact rail alignment along Highway 99
Grades, depths, and structural design
Tunnel, trench, or surface segment assessments
Geotechnical investigations
Drainage, flood risk modelling, and coastal resilience integration

Urban Development & Transportation Planning:

Land use analysis
Zoning impacts
Connections with municipal road networks
Integration with transit, rapid transit, and freight logistics
Accommodation of recreational, institutional, and commercial areas

Costing & Economic Analysis

Capital cost estimation
Operating cost modeling
Multi-party capital allocation scenarios (see example to left)
Long-term savings for BNSF due to shorter route
Life-cycle cost comparison (existing vs. relocated route)

Stakeholder Engagement

Continuous collaboration with the Province of BC, Surrey and White Rock municipalies, Semiahmoo First Nation, BNSF, and the Federal CTA.

Business Case Development [multi-criteria analysis]

Safety improvements
Economic benefits
Operational efficiency
Environmental performance
Social acceptance
Agricultural Land Reserve considerations

A memorable quote from the 2013 BNSF Seattle meeting:
“Get the Canadian Transportation Agency to tell us to move.”

Print-friendly PDF

Detail script for 13 / FUNDING FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

This estimate assumes this study is fully contracted out to an Eng/econ firm. If this study is done in house, we expect the estimated cost to be 50% or less.
Fill in your own estimates if you are so inclined.

Probable new alignment route – Hwy 99

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

White Rock Pier repairs after violent storm – Click Here

Municipal Commitments

Both Surrey and White Rock had previously allocated budget funds for the feasibility study and have repeatedly affirmed political support. We expect confirmations to be positive.

Semiahmoo First Nation

Expressed strong support
Joined the expanded mayors group
Indicated willingness to participate in next steps
Potentially may contribute financially

Provincial Government

Before 2017, BC expressed clear support for advancing the feasibility study.
After the 2017 transition to a coalition government, progress slowed and communication gaps emerged. Advocacy efforts continue to push for:

Re-engagement
Funding commitments
Coordination with provincial transportation planning

Port Metro Vancouver

Initially quiet, but engaged in meetings in 2019 and 2020, remain supportive of information sharing, and hopefully will commit in the future to shared capital funding.

Federal Government [local MP’s]

Supported interim safety improvements
Engaged in discussions
Maintained interest in the CTA process..

Private Donors

Willingness to contribute financially, once the feasibility study is started, remains to be assessed. .
As an example, there was $2M raised for the White Rock Pier repair (see link).

The cost of doing the feasibility study will depend on whether the exercise is fully contracted out to and ‘engineering/economic’ group, or performed in-house, which is desirable; the estimated cost if fully contracted out is $600,000; the estimated cost if done in-house is estimated to be #300,000 or less.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 14 / MUNICIPAL COMMITMENTS

‘Municipal Funds are already in the Bank’

White Rock City Hall from website; see link

Surrey City Hall from website; see link

Reports #5, #6, #8 – Click Here

Municipal governments have been essential to sustaining progress on rail relocation.

2014 — White Rock Report (Safety Focus)

White Rock released a detailed report emphasizing:

Safety risks
Rail vulnerability
CTA process requirements

2015 — Surrey Council Motion

Surrey directed staff to:

Coordinate with White Rock and BC
Develop a cost-sharing model
Report back with recommendations

2016 — Surrey Economic Report

A second Bennett report highlighted:

Economic opportunities
Partner funding structure
Regional benefits

2016 — Mayor Baldwin’s Safety Report

Sent to BC and Federal transportation ministers with the powerful line:
“It is not a question of if a disaster will occur, but when.”

Budget Allocations in 2016

White Rock: $75,000
Surrey: $225,000

2019–2020 Momentum

A series of high-level ‘what we called the expanded mayor’s meetings included Municipal leaders, Provincial MLA’s, Federal MP’s, Semiahmoo First Nation, and our Advocacy organization.

ALL demonstrated strong multi-party alignment, and preferred advancement to the Feasibility Study, considered a MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT, before COVID-19 interrupted our progress.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 15 / WORKING WITH BC PROV GOV’T

BC Parliament Buildings Victoria BC – Link here

From Peace Arch News Feb 2017; note degradation of slope

Reports #2, #5, #8 – Click Here

Provincial involvement is essential because the Highway 99 corridor is provincially controlled and relocation cannot proceed without BC’s support.

Early Engagement (2013–2016)

Key provincial allies included:

MLA Gordie Hogg
MLA Peter Fassbender

They facilitated:

Intergovernmental introductions
Early safety discussions
Coordination with BC Transportation

2017 Provincial Letter

The BC Minister of Transportation c/o Todd Stone, conveyed support for studying relocation and federal collaboration, by forwarding a letter to Fed Transportation Minister Marc Garneau. .

Post-2017 Transition

After the government shift:

Momentum slowed and communication weakened.
Advocacy efforts with ‘Mayors group’ achieved major alignment and forward wishes.
MLA Tracy Redies pushed strongly for provincial involvement

2018–2020 Multi-Stakeholder Alignment

A 2018 meeting facilitated by Gordie Hogg, brought together all relevant political entities, reviewed work to date, and urged the movement ahead of all portions of this initiative. :

Provincial Role Moving Forward

BC must:

Participate in the feasibility study and its funding.
Approve or facilitate engineering work in the Highway 99 corridor
Lead or co-lead technical elements

Coordinate with municipalities, and all stakeholders i/c our Advocacy group.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 16 / WORKING WITH PORT METRO VAN

DeltaPort Intermodal yard expansion project Sept 2018

Photo credit GCT Deltaport

Moving to work collaboratively with PM Vanc.

Photo credit to worldipreview.com

Report #4 – Click Here

Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) has increasingly become an important stakeholder in the rail relocation discussion due to the strong connection between trade growth, port efficiency, and freight rail reliability.

Early Engagement

2016: White Rock sent a major rail-safety report to the PMV CEO, highlighting dangerous-goods risks and shoreline vulnerability.
2017: Rail-relocation advocates delivered a follow-up letter and technical report to PMV, outlining progress and requesting collaboration.

Formal Meetings

Late 2019: Advocates met with PMV capital-management officials to discuss the relocation vision, economic implications, and potential alignment with Gateway transportation priorities.
Early 2020: A second meeting was planned but cancelled due to COVID-19.

2021 Virtual Meeting

A productive Zoom session took place on February 24, 2021, convened with the help of Gordie Hogg. PMV expressed readiness to:

Participate in future discussions
Provide port-related trade and transportation data
Support funding applications (letters, statements, data)

No direct capital-funding commitments were made by PMV.

Economic Importance

PMV benefits significantly from a stable, resilient freight corridor.
Relocation reduces:

Operational risk
Supply-chain disruption
Weather-related vulnerability

As outlined in Cards 7 and 8, relocation supports long-term port efficiency and competitiveness.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 17 / RAISING PRIVATE FUNDS

Probable new alignment route – Hwy 99

Community support for rail relocation on the Semiahmoo Peninsula is deep and widespread. Citizen engagement has remained strong throughout the years, and private fundraising may be possible.

Public Demonstrations of Support

A major indicator was the September 2018 public forum, called by then–White Rock Mayor Wayne Baldwin:

Nearly 200 attendees despite only three days’ notice
Presenters included municipal, provincial, and federal representatives, as well as advocates
Over 90% of attendees expressed support for relocation
Strong interest in staying informed and involved

Expanding Beyond Top-Down Advocacy

Historically, most advocacy focused on:

Elected officials
Administrators
Agency leadership

But bottom-up, community-driven momentum can influence timelines and funding decisions.

Private-Funding Potential

Based on past fundraising success in the region — including the $2M raised privately for the White Rock Pier restoration — there may be some hope for:

Individual donors
Local businesses
Community organizations
Philanthropic contributors

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 18 / FUTURE CAPITAL FUNDING

Example of partner funding allocation
Roberts Bank Corridor Crossing Project

Click on table above to download editable excel version

Construction equipment ready to go

Report #2, #4 – Click Here

Estimates for full rail-relocation capital costs have historically ranged from $300 million to $400 million, including all construction, engineering, and possible right-of-way acquisition.

Multi-Party Funding Model

A broad cost-sharing framework is expected, inspired by the 2010 Roberts Bank Corridor project, which incorporated 11 funding partners. See example to left.

Federal Contribution

Under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act (RRCA), the federal government can fund:

Up to 50% of eligible relocation costs

A conservative forecast assumes:

$140 million on a $350M project

BNSF Contribution

Under the RRCA, railways must be kept financially neutral.
This is unique because:

The Highway 99 relocation shortens the route
BNSF therefore gains operational savings
Advocates estimate BNSF’s contribution range as $60M to $200M
with a conservative working estimate of $80M.

Other Contributors

Remaining capital would likely be shared among:

Province of BC
City of Surrey
City of White Rock
Semiahmoo First Nation
Port Metro Vancouver
Private/philanthropic partners

To pull this all together, and provide some measure of capital contributions totalling $400M, see the mid-page chart to the left. Finally, all contributions will ultimately be formalized through intergovernmental agreement and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA).

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 19 / BROAD OUTLINE OF TIMETABLE

Typical rail tunnel under construction

Progressive ideas for those thinking long, high, and wide

The overall schedule for relocation is influenced by political alignment, intergovernmental coordination, and technical requirements.

Recent Progress

In 2020, the “expanded mayors’ group”, led by our ‘Advocates for BNSF Rail Relocation’, including municipal, provincial, federal, and Semiahmoo First Nation leaders — held final pre-COVID meetings showing high momentum and readiness to proceed to the Feasibility Study.

COVID-19 Pause

Between 2021 and 2024, communication and coordination effectively halted.
In 2025, advocacy restarted with new energy and updated government representation.

Projected Timeline

Feasibility Study: 12–18 months
Estimated Completion: Late 2027
Approvals will result from :
- Provincial and Municipal agencies, and
- Through the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA)

Construction Timeline

Impossible to determine at this early stage, but construction would begin only after:

Feasibility study completion
Funding agreements
Formal approvals

The earlier the feasibility study begins; the sooner relocation can move toward implementation. And, if we might suggest, if there is a major catastrophe along this line, especially if many people are killed, then there will be a feasibility study that will allow an early construction which undoubtedly then, will be DEMANDED by the citizens of the Semiahmoo Peninsula.

Print friendly PDF

Detail script for 20 / SUMMARY BNSF RAIL RELOCATION

Click on table above to download editable excel document

This website represents more than ten years of detailed research, sustained advocacy, and active engagement with political leaders, agencies, and the community.

Scope of Work Completed

Between 2012 and 2026, advocates:

Conducted extensive safety, economic, and environmental research
Held numerous meetings with municipal, provincial, and federal officials
Engaged Semiahmoo First Nation leaders
Participated in public forums with strong community turnout
Documented system vulnerabilities, emergency risks, and shoreline hazards

Stakeholder Transparency

Government positions reflected on this site are based on direct conversations and documented communications; officials are encouraged to submit corrections or additions to ensure the public record remains accurate.

Key Deliverables Identified

Feasibility study funding model (Card 13)
Timelines for study and approvals (Card 19)
Capital-cost scenarios and partner allocations (Card 18)

Ongoing Commitment

The site is maintained actively and updated as conditions evolve.
Latest update: April 2026.

Our ‘Advocates for BNSF Rail Relocation’ remain dedicated to ensuring that safety, environmental protection, and economic efficiency guide the future of this Semiahmoo Rail Relocation.

Print friendly PDF

BNSF RAIL RELOCATION – SEMIAHMOO PENINSULA

01 / Exec Summary of Website

Rail Relocation in Canada
RR current Federal Legislation
14 years of Advocacy
Start Feasibility Study

Learn More

02 / HISTORICAL CONTEXT

1909 – 2 to 3 trains/day; 6 cars
1992 – 2 to 5 trains/day; cars unknown
2016 – 15 to 20 trains/day; up to 140 cars
2030 – continued increase in frequency & length

Learn More

03 / PRESENT SITUATION

• Safety, Economic, Environmental
• Dedicated Efforts 2013 to 2026
• Perspective on Political Support
• Next Step: Feasibility study completion

Learn More

04 / EMERGING SAFETY CONCERNS

Undesired emergencies [UDE’s]; trains break apart
Soil slides becoming more frequent
Rising ocean levels lapping rails
Mechanical issues
Trespassing issues

Learn More

05 / WHAT CAUSES DERAILMENTS?

Train breaks apart [UDE’s + other]
Soil Slides before or during passing train
Ocean lapping weakens rail bed
Mechanical issues alone or with other

Learn More

06 / DERAILMENT DISASTERS

Major human life losses on horizon
Oil spillage and explosions
Chlorine spills
Ammonia spills

Learn More

07 / EMERGING ECONOMIC CONCERNS

Key route disruptions
Inefficient Fraser Port connections
Loss of Port popularity
Sumas Route closure

Learn More

08 / ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

Enhancement of Gateway Initiative
Capital Cost Funding by Sharing + Legislation
Economic growth and Trade
Hi-Speed Rail

Learn More

09 / ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Climate Change
Ocean Level Rise [CFAS]
Shoreline Degradation
Habitat Disruptions

Learn More

An Audio-Visual Summary

WHY we need to relocate the BNSF Rail line… And HOW we are going to do it!

NOTE there have been four derailments on the subject BNSF line in the last six years;

SEE March 2026 newsletter for details.

Learn More

10 / WHY IS THIS RR UNIQUE IN NA?

Our RR shortens time and distance
Most RR’s in NA add time and distance
See Graphics under ‘Learn More’
Major affect on future Capital Funding

Learn More

11 / ALTERNATE INLAND ALIGNMENTS

Various alignments considered in past
Alignment #4 now favored by all
Sumas-Huntington falling out of favor
See Graphic under ‘Learn More’

Learn More

12 / WHAT’S IN FEASIBILITY STUDY?

Engineering work i/c depths, grades, etc
Urban + Transportation Plans
Capital Cost Estimates + Partner Allocations
Life cycle economic analysis

Learn More

13 / FUNDING FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

Municipalities
Provincial Government
Port Metro Vancouver
Private + other

Learn More

14 / MUNICIPAL COMMITMENTS

Oct 2014 – City WR initial study into process RR
Oct 2015 – City Surrey directive Feasibility Study
Jan 2016 – City Surrey study into Economics RR
2016 – both Cities budget for Feasibility Study

Learn More

15 / WORKING WITH BC PROV GOV'T

2014 thru 2016 liaison Gordie Hogg BC-MLA
2017 letter BC Min Transp. to Fed Gov’t
2017 new Coalition Gov’t; contacts weakened
2018 Comm Mt i/c local BC MLA Tracy Redies

Learn More

16 / WORKING WITH PORT METRO VAN

2016 – City WR report to PMV
2017 – Advocacy liaisons by mail
2019 – Full Engagement
2020 – Funding for Feasibility Study

Learn More

17 / RAISING PRIVATE FUNDS

Broad Public Support
Bottom-up meets Top-down
Charitable Donations Possible
Our Expectations

Learn More

18 / FUTURE CAPITAL FUNDING

Total Required = $300M to $400M
Many stakeholders will Contribute
Economic figures difficult to Access
Will be part of agreement or application to CTA

Learn More

19 / BROAD OUTLINE OF TIMETABLE

Funding for Feasibility Study by Dec 2026
Complete Feasibility Study by end 2027
Approval of project construction … TBD
Start Construction … TBD

Learn More

Updated Possible Alignments June 30-20-small

20 / SUMMARY BNSF RAIL RELOCATION

Extensive Source of Info for All
Forum for Politicians is Proposed
Proposed Funding + Timeline for Feasibility Study
Estimated Cap Costs Construction and Timeline

Learn More

Subscribe to the Rail Safety & Relocation Newsletter [quarterly]

Content derived from 14 years of work by ‘Advocates for Rail Relocation’ from sources deemed reliable, and as a community service; we assume no liability for inaccuracies; modifications or corrections accepted from readers who supply sources, references, and contact info.

Website updated to July 2026

Detail script for 01 / EXEC SUMMARY OF WEBSITE:

Typical perimeter rail line

Many Curves – this at 24 Ave

Detail Script for 02 / HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Detail script for 03 / PRESENT SITUATION

Detail script for 04 / EMERGING SAFETY CONCERNS

Detail script for 05 / WHAT CAUSES DERAILMENTS?

Detail script for 06 / DERAILMENT DISASTERS

Detail script for 07 / EMERGING ECONOMIC CONCERNS

Detail script for 08 / ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

Detail script for 09 / ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Detail script for 10 / WHY IS THIS RR UNIQUE IN NA?

Detail script for 11 / ALTERNATE INLAND ALIGNMENTS

Detail script for 12 / WHAT’S IN FEASIBILITY STUDY?

Detail script for 13 / FUNDING FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

Detail script for 14 / MUNICIPAL COMMITMENTS

Detail script for 15 / WORKING WITH BC PROV GOV’T

Detail script for 16 / WORKING WITH PORT METRO VAN

Detail script for 17 / RAISING PRIVATE FUNDS

Detail script for 18 / FUTURE CAPITAL FUNDING

Detail script for 19 / BROAD OUTLINE OF TIMETABLE

Detail script for 20 / SUMMARY BNSF RAIL RELOCATION

BNSF RAIL RELOCATION – SEMIAHMOO PENINSULA

01 / Exec Summary of Website

02 / HISTORICAL CONTEXT

03 / PRESENT SITUATION

04 / EMERGING SAFETY CONCERNS

05 / WHAT CAUSES DERAILMENTS?

06 / DERAILMENT DISASTERS

07 / EMERGING ECONOMIC CONCERNS

08 / ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

09 / ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

An Audio-Visual Summary

NOTE there have been four derailments on the subject BNSF line in the last six years;

10 / WHY IS THIS RR UNIQUE IN NA?

11 / ALTERNATE INLAND ALIGNMENTS

12 / WHAT’S IN FEASIBILITY STUDY?

13 / FUNDING FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

14 / MUNICIPAL COMMITMENTS

15 / WORKING WITH BC PROV GOV'T

16 / WORKING WITH PORT METRO VAN

17 / RAISING PRIVATE FUNDS

18 / FUTURE CAPITAL FUNDING

19 / BROAD OUTLINE OF TIMETABLE

20 / SUMMARY BNSF RAIL RELOCATION

Subscribe to the Rail Safety & Relocation Newsletter [quarterly]

Success!

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Thank you! You will receive an email link to confirm your email address and subscription.