From the Spokane Journal of Business:
http://www.spokanejournal.com/printer_friendly.php?id=article&sub=2784&print
A good analysis of a growing problem. But BNSF running out of capacity in 18 months?
Funny, but no mention to the fact that the PCE corridor is mostly still in place, owned by the State, and would provide an alternative to depending on BNSF to expand it’s capacity in a timely manner. Not to mention a continued dependency on the captive model.
They say they can not comprehend how BNSF could double track its single tracked mains. How does he think any of the original singe track mains got double tracked. It just takes ties, rails , money and enough traffic to justify the effort. P.S. What is the current status of the former PCE corridor. Is it unbroken and still graded? [?] As always ENJOY
There’s a major breach of the PCE at Lind where the steel trestle’s been dismantled. And then there’s the unresolved question of the trestle across Benewah Lake. The BNSF is aleady double tracked from Sunset Jct (at the west edge of downtown Spokane) to Sandpoint, about 60 miles, Except for the trestle over Lake Pend Oreille. East of Sandpoint there’s a bunch of single track tunnels including the biggy east of Libby.
Sounds like the PCE would require someone to dig deep in their pockets just for a cost analysis i.e. replacement of trestle and structual integrity of existing trestle? Double track tunnels without interupting existing taffic? Not cheap. Revive existing right-of-way? Maybe less expensive but still not cheap. [2c]
So you hiked out there to Cow Creek west of Marengo too?
BTW, there’s more than just the Cow Creek trestle that would need to be replaced for a PCE corridor revival. The trestle near Garcia was taken out by a slide a while back, and beyond Washington there are long stretches that have new development on them. The highway from Marble Creek to Avery, the conversion of the ROW from Avery to Rolland to a forest service road including redecking the North Fork crossing, a golf course across from St. Regis, UM takeovers in Missoula, even a ROW intrusion by MRL onto the old PCE ROW east of Missoula.
Still, the debate over how to expand Washington States rail capacity shouldn’t be strictly limited to BNSF and UP desires. Washington needs to explore the option of competitive rail access if it’s taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for rail expansion projects.
Stampede Pass is an anachronism, and should be scrapped. The Milwaukee’s Snoqualmie Pass line ROW is so superior to the Stampede Pass line it isn’t even debatable. Either re-align the tracks to the Milwaukee corridor from Easton to Auburn, or build a life size replica of the Cascade Tunnel under Stampede. Frankly, the entire ex-NP from the Tri-Cities to Auburn is too slow to accomodate the needs of Washington shippers, and would need major GN-type modifications to make it’s profile more suited for today’s needs.
Interesting article. One more reason why someone should have bought up the PCE instead of scrapping it out. Too bad the railroads were in a different place back then with no foresight.
Re-building the PCE today would be a major court battle. Every ‘we gotta save our mother earth goddess from the likes of industry’ enviromentalist would take up the cause and try to stop it. I betcha the lawsuits would be on-going for twenty years. The DME wants to build 300 miles of track and they are stuck in a rut, just imagine what a railroad trying to build 1000 miles of track would run up against.
It only takes one Mayo clinic to derail or delay your whole expasion. [2c]
There is a major difference regarding the PCE in Washington - the State owns most of the corridor, and it is likely the State would be the lead player for facilitating a new rail line over it. It’s a lttle bit different legal battle when it’s a government entity as opposed to a private entity like DM&E.
Which is why, if real rail capacity expansion is a goal of US transportation planners, it may be necessary to have new ROW’s be under the jurisdiction of each state’s DOT. Just adding occassional sidings to the existing sparse Western rail system ain’t gonna do it. For one, there is finally a recognition by the feds that the captive rail shipper issue needs serious fixin’, and giving federal aid to existing Class I’s with there monopolistic tendencies just makes the problem worse, not better.
Only facilitating the creation of new railroad entities will solve both the lack of capacity and the captive shipper problems, although the latter would need competitive access instituted over existing and new tracks.
Having a state governmental entity involved in right-of-way ownership or acquisition is not a guarantee against lawsuits in federal court, especially if public lands of any sort are involved. Federal environmental regulatory procedure would still have to be followed, plus the politically risky eminent domain issue would still need to be addressed. All of this could still tie up any project in court for years.
I agree. The political enviroment has changed drastically from when the PCE was built. American is no longer obsessed with conquering the west, vestiges of which were still in existence in 1909 when the PCE was built, but rather we are now concerned with our ‘footprint’ on the enviroment. Such an attitude will not foster the expansion of the railroads, but rather the protracted court battles and lawyers’ fees.
Why not? Rail is more environmentally friendly than road and a rail line needs far less land than a freeway.
In the US, we have two major factors working against that:
The American’s love affair with the private auto and trucking lines.
The NIMBY crowd.
There’s LOTS more minor factors, but these are the big ones.
Back in those days, everybody wanted a railroad in their backyards, so to speak.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I agree with you there. If we had more cargo transported by railroad than truck it would work miracles for our enviroment, and our taxes. Freight would be moved more effeciently with less fuel than ever before. Our freeways would not suffer the pounding that millions of tons of freight deliver every year. Road maintenance would be less and hopefully we would see that money as a cost savings to the taxpayer (right).
Unfortunately NIMBYs don’t see it that way. They see it in terms of two bands of steel running through pristine wilderness. They see railroads as an appendige of industrialization, the process which ‘ruined’ the enviroment to begin with. As such, railroads and expansion thereof are to be resisted at every turn.
Naw, not the tree huggers…the folks who drive around in their Volvos, wearing neoprene soled sneakers, nylon windbreakers, and eating their free range chicken salad out of Tupperware containers while sipping their Starbucks out of Styrofoam cups, the whole time spouting off about how the oil companies have destroyed the environment….then they go home to their little slice of suburban heaven, carved out of the same exact pristine wilderness by developers twenty years ago…
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
Oh don’t get me wrong, I agree with you there. If we had more cargo transported by railroad than truck it would work miracles for our enviroment, and our taxes. Freight would be moved more effeciently with less fuel than ever before. Our freeways would not suffer the pounding that millions of tons of freight deliver every year. Road maintenance would be less and hopefully we would see that money as a cost savings to the taxpayer (right).
Unfortunately NIMBYs don’t see it that way. They see it in terms of two bands of steel running through pristine wilderness. They see railroads as an appendige of industrialization, the process which ‘ruined’ the enviroment to begin with. As such, railroads and expansion thereof are to be resisted at every turn.
I’ll take a railroad in our backyard, with our own personal farm spur. Sign me up!
Heck, then we could load a rail hopper right at the farm for the next harvest. That is, if we can get BNSF to provide carload service![;)]
More folks signing on to be "captive " shippers?
Realistically, for only a handful of carloads a year, you should also be ready to assume the costs of building and maintaining your own spur, or being billed appropriately by the connecting Class 1 for providing such a service. Also, don’t expect unit train rates when you provide truckload business.