In Springfield, IL, UP wants to expand it’s tracks along 3rd Street to accommodate more rail traffic. Though the local media keeps referring to high-speed passenger rail, I think UP wants to expand freight traffic on it’s Chicago-St Louis corridor. Of course local residents don’t like this. They’re concerned that expansion will have a negative impact on the property. Local residents seem to think that rail expansion should be in the east of downtown along 10th street.
Springfield aldermen and Mayor Tim Davlin tonight unanimously approved a resolution opposing plans for high-speed rail and additional freight traffic along Third Street.
The city is prepared to fight the idea in court and is urging the Union Pacific Railroad to look again at the 10th Street corridor as a better route for high-speed rail, according to the resolution.
“I want to make this statement perfectly clear: Nobody is opposed to high-speed rail,” Davlin said during Tuesday’s city council meeting. “We want high-speed rail in our city. It’s just where that’s going to be located is where we have the biggest concern.
“Evidently, from everything I’m hearing from around the state, we’re the one community that’s impacted the most,” Davlin said. “Probably 99 percent of all the impact is right here in Springfield.”
Tough call, actually. I’m not familiar with Springfield personally, but either corridor looks problematic.
The Springfield Amtrak station shows as being on Third Street. It looks like there may be enough room for a second main, but it does run through a lot of what appears to be residential area, and in fairly close quarters.
There appears to be a yard already in place on the 10th Street line, although it also appears that there was once a yard on the north side of town on the Third Street line.
The bigger question is where the traffic is going to/coming from. The Third Street line goes due north out of town, while the 10th Street line goes east.
also the Springfield media is throwing around lies saying that freight trains are going to increase to 40 trains when UP is really going up to 15 trains from 5
But, hopefully, UP will deal with the locals with somewhat more sensitivity than CN dealt with the locals on the EJ&E merger. Simply telling the locals to jump in the nearest lake isn’t a good strategy.
UP has been known to bow to local pressure before–at least twice that I can think of in West Chicago alone. Had it not, Global 3 would have been a lot closer in to Chicago than at Rochelle, and a large area of residences would have been leveled for a UP-EJ&E connection.
The only problem is that Union Pacific CAN’T do their expansion on the 10th street corridor for one simple reason. 10th Street isn’t their right-of-way!! 10th Street belongs to Norfolk Southern. Norfolk Southern is not going to let Union Pacific just waltz right in and put up tracks next to theirs.
I have traveled to and from Springfield via Amtrak and by car many times over the years and can tell you the Third Street area of Springfield is certainly nothing to get all excited about. It is lined (at least in and near downtown) with old factory and business buildings and many homes that could use a good coat of paint (I am being extremely kind and thinking of all the junk in the back yards that back up to the U.P. track). Just to be completely fair, Tenth Street is not much better so either U.P. route would be acceptable IMHO. The folks in Barrington had a better argument relative to the EJ&E deal…and I think they are also kinda nutty personally.
Posted Sep 02, 2009 @ 10:33 AM
Last update Sep 03, 2009 @ 10:30 AM
The Union Pacific Railroad is suggesting the city of Springfield close five rail crossings and build nine overpasses and one underpass along a 4.4-mile stretch that cuts through the heart of downtown.
This changes the color of the discussion considerably. I can understand their opposition to this, although they probably still want the station to be downtown…
I disagree. It may well be that nothing would have satisfied Barrington, but the effort should have been made, if only to demonstrate that it was Barrington that was being unreasonable, not CN. If you want to see the difference between how CN and UP approaches issues like this, look at the 900 South line dispute in Salt Lake City (where UP reopened a dormant line through a residential area as a freight bypass). UP bent over backwards to try to resolve Salt Lake City’s issues. It wasn’t successful in doing so, but the fact that it tried made it easy for STB to find in UP’s favor. And it ultimately led to a government funded solution that satisfied the concerns of both the city and the railroad. That’s the difference between being sensitive to local concerns and being a bull in a china shop.
I suggest that there are really two issues here. One is more UP freight trains. The other is high speed rail between Chicago and St Louis.
I worked for the ill-fated Chicgo Missouri & Western and was headquartered in Springfield. In that context I was invited on a hi-rail trip from the depot Southward. The track is at grade and on a narrow right of way. IIRC it would be tough to put a second line through there, but probably not impossible. Of course if someone was to take the buildings down on one side or another no problem.
The UP can run as many trains as it wants and can dispatch. With a siding at Ridgely Yard north of town and another one south of town they could get to opposing trains at least every hour and perhaps every half hour leaving the line through town single track. The city has no say in this. The city of Auburn WA fought the BN’s reopening of Stampede Pass because that line ran through a couple of miles of Auburn. The line had been there since 1901. Auburn lost. Springfield will loose if they want to waste their money.
High Speed is a whole different kettle of fish. If I were the UP I would tell the proponents that you must add capacity sufficient to not disrupt my freight traffic and to handle your traffic. I will be happy to build anything you are willing to pay for. You provide the right of way and deal with the locals. Call back when you have the right of way. This is pretty much how the railroads deal with these proposals.
In fact UP will probably make their engineering guys available to keep the high speed advocates honest, hopefully at the proponents’ expense. I hope UP is not spending their own money on this high speed stuff. I am a stockholder and they would be breaching their fiduciary duty to me if they spend my money on such non p
Lincoln did a lot of legal work for various railroads, including defending the first bridge across the Mississippi River from the steamboat crowd. If he had the chance I am sure he would be happy to be local council for UP on the basis I described. He would have both law and righteousness on his side.
Ah, that’d be nice. One of the finest lawyers in history working on the side of the railroad. I personally want Third Street to get double tracked. I want to see what it was like back in the 60s and 70s.