First off, the “J”, now CN, is in my back yard and I don’t care (I gues that makes me a IMBYIDC - I’m an idiot?) Second, the Mayor of Aurora, Tom Weiser, needs to stop crying over spilled milk and accept it. Instead of fighting the change that’s not going to be reversed he needs to spend more time trying to secure funding for a Rt. 34 / Ogden Rd. underpass. I know I’m right there at the borderline of being too political but that railroad crossing is in terrible shape. The railroad track has sunk so far (at least a foot) that trains, cars and trucks can’t negotiate the crossing at more than 25mph. Anybody who hits that crossing at more than 40mph is nuts, might spit-up a kidney and there vehicle might need a few repairs. Why spend the money to fix it when an underpass is the best possible solution?
Barrington is stuck with at grade railroad crossings because most of the crossings (both the CN and UP) are in the middle of their downtown area. There will not be any overpasses built because the residnets will complain that they’re an eyesore. An underpass will be perceived as splitting the town. I do plan on calling the mayor or Barrington and asking when their railroad appreciation festival will take place. I’m expecting an answer that is along the lines of a cold day in [}:)].
There is a problem with underpasses. I lived near the IC in Homewood. Every underpass (and there are none going over except I-80) floods when it rains and I don’t mean inchs of water. They are not passable with water as much as eight feet deep. Rains like we have been having mean two to three days of closed underpasses. This is becasue of the closeness in elevation to Lake Michigan as you are aware. communites are reluctant to build overpasses particularly in downtown areas as they limit access to businesses for several blocka in both directions.
If you can’t raise the bridge, lower the river: Would it be feasible to sink part of the CN/EJ&E line into a trench (like they did in Reno, NV) so that automotive traffic at ground level could get over the tracks without physically crossing them?
If the CREATE projects will cost $6B…what would 130 miles of trenching for a double track railroad parlay into? Especially where the trench would be at or below the levels of the areas lakes and rivers.
It’s feasible. But not cheap. Major difficulties are:
Rail construction staging. Where do you put the tracks and run the trains while you dig the trench? There’s not a lot of right-of-way width.
Utility relocation. Hundreds of underground water, sewer, gas, electricity, and telecom lines will run smack through, over, adjacent, or under the trench with insufficient cover, and have to be relocated, with concomitant construction staging issues (they can’t be taken out of service for more than a few minutes, usually). One of the problems is, where do you put them? You don’t want lines running parallel to and underneath tracks or trench walls. Sewer lines will require lift stations and water lines may require pumping stations, too.
Street construction staging. While you close streets to erect overpasses, where do you put all the cars? The streets aren’t usually so wide that there’s room to move the street over, nor enough lanes to get away with closing half of them for awhile. Traffic nightmares create public nightmares. Emergency vehicle temporary substations on the “wrong” side of the tracks may be needed. Kids may have to be bussed to schools. Logistics fun.
Building foundation undermining. If buildings are up against the trench, then foundations will have to be tied back. These tend to be individualized problems that are difficult to know what to do until you go dig and see what’s there. Cost estimating is an impossibility. Damage liability is sticky.
Land acquisition. Invariably some land will be required. Now t
RWM: you didn’t even mention the uncharted utility lines. My last job on utility lines nearly drove me insane. To top it off I found wooden water lines! Killed the lines customers lost service. A three month delay for the change orders, ROW acquisition, easements, etc. (had an excellent aide to do that). Atlanta has had the wooden water line problem on many of their downtown projects.
It’s feasible. But not cheap. Major difficulties are:
Rail construction staging. Where do you put the tracks and run the trains while you dig the trench? There’s not a lot of right-of-way width.
Utility relocation. Hundreds of underground water, sewer, gas, electricity, and telecom lines will run smack through, over, adjacent, or under the trench with insufficient cover, and have to be relocated, with concomitant construction staging issues (they can’t be taken out of service for more than a few minutes, usually). One of the problems is, where do you put them? You don’t want lines running parallel to and underneath tracks or trench walls. Sewer lines will require lift stations and water lines may require pumping stations, too.
Street construction staging. While you close streets to erect overpasses, where do you put all the cars? The streets aren’t usually so wide that there’s room to move the street over, nor enough lanes to get away with closing half of them for awhile. Traffic nightmares create public nightmares. Emergency vehicle temporary substations on the “wrong” side of the tracks may be needed. Kids may have to be bussed to schools. Logistics fun.
Building foundation undermining. If buildings are up against the trench, then foundations will have to be tied back. These tend to be individualized problems that are difficult to know what to do until you go dig and see what’s there. Cost estimating is an impossibility. Damage liability is sticky.
Relocate the former EJ&E main line through Barrington NEVER going to happen. for one reason. Barrington was the ONE suburb that REFUSES to this day to expand rt 59 to 4 lanes through its downtown area saying that its beautiful DOWNTOWN is worth more than allow traffic to flow freely. They also had the WHOLE downtown declared a Historical Preservation distric to prevent the State from being able to use Emiminat Domain to force them to allow the State to make route 59 4 lanes there. So if you think for 2 secs that they are going to allow the CN to dig a trench deep enough to put the old EJ&E into it. I have a very nice 4-8-8-4 in my BACK YARD I would like to sell you. BTW it does run and all it needs is a load of coal and you can run it down the mainline of your chosing.
In my letter to the STB I suggested they a;so approve a right of way around Chicago that was at least fifty miles outside the current suburbs. That way a right of way of three or more tracks, yards and terminals could be planned before the communities reach out that far. I’d be willing to bet some of those smnall towns that are dieing would jump at the chance to be a rail hub with all the jobs and revenue they would produce. Anybody feel like starting the 21st century belt line?
End ??? This kind of thing has been going on since Day 1 of the railroad business.
There’s a famous old poster from the Philadelphia area (or maybe NJ or Baltimore) from back around 1830 objecting to a proposed railroad that ends in huge typeface something like this:
“RALLY PEOPLE In The MAJESTY Of Your STRENGTH And FORBID THIS OUTRAGE”
If I can find a link to an image of it on-line someplace, I’ll post it.
Here, Barrington is essentially free to build any and as many bridges as it wants over the EJ&E line. All they have to do is keep the underside of the bridge at or above around 25 to 30 ft. above top of rail, and keep all of the piers and abutments outside of the railroad’s R-O-W. As long as they do that, I’m sure CN wouldn’t object to the minor air rights encroachment/ taking - might even allow them to use a little bit of the R-O-W for a bridge. It can even be built without much interference to the railroad - just a flagman for those days when the main pieces of the bridge deck are being lifted into place. Happens all the time, esp. over Interstate highways. What’s the big deal - besides $$$ x $$$, that is ?