Okay, after perusing through this thing, I’d like to comment on the “East-West Capacity Expansion: Summary of Alternative A”, which includes the following wish list:
-
Crown cut Stampede Pass to allow double stacks
-
Construct (actually reconstruct!) the ex-Milwaukee line between Lind and Ellensburg
-
Install 8,000 foot sidings for 20 minute headways between Auburn and Ellensburg, and (after completing #2 above) between Lind and Ellensburg
-
Install CTC overlaid with ETMS
-
Grade separations east of Spokane (as part of “Bridging the Valley” bi-state project with Idaho)
Commentary
-
I and many others have always wondered why the State doesn’t consider a rebuild of the ex-Milwaukee line between the Maple Valley area and Easton. This ROW has (had?) double stack clearances built in, and has eastbound/westbound grades of 1.6% and 0.7% respectively compared to Stampede Pass’s 2.2% east and west. Could this be a case of those pesky NP bonds preventing a switch from the horrid ex-NP alignment to the superior ex-Milwaukee alignment? Because otherwise, it seems like a no brainer, especially if the State is willing to pony up a goodly portion of the necessary funds.
-
The ex-Milwaukee line between Ellensburg and Lind should never have been ripped out in the first place, but that’s neither here nor there now. What does spring to mind is the possibility of extended that rebuild from Lind to Marengo to allow UP possible access…well, we’ll touch on that later…as in now, right now…
A. The State study mentions directional running, westbound on Stevens and eastbound on Stampede/Lind rebuild for BNSF. What about UP? UP also serves Seattle and Tacoma ports, and since most of the congestion for both UP and BNSF is on the I-5 line, wouldn’t it make sense for both UP and BNSF (as well as the S
This is a most interesting wish list but one issue has not been addressed: How does the State of Washington propose to finance all of this?? We’re easily talking BILLIONS here.
If I were short of grocery money but spent a significant amount of money to have a private consultant propose how I would spend my funds if I won a million dollars in the lottery, my family could reasonably conclude I have lost the last ounce of common sense I was born with. State, municipal and federal agencies as a matter of routine create an enormous amount of paper plane projects with the same amount of chance of financing that I have in purchasing a winning ticket. Pouring from the empty into the void. Real versus theoretical issues of infrastructure are deferred for lack of funding, or worse while bridges to nowhere are built out of pork. Pipe dreams are fueled by smoke and mirrors. Where’s my flying car?
Would love to get involved in this thread, but since I know nothing about Washington railroading I must pass. sure seems like an interesting state tho.
How are the Zags this year?
ed
My understanding is that the State’s share of such funding would come out of the state fuel tax. I don’t necessarily oppose using highway fuel taxes for rail projects at the state level, but in this instance I think an Alemeda Corridor type box fee would be appropriate, since much of this wish list is for the benefit of the ports of Seattle and Tacoma.
My feeling is that this rail plan is a good template for most other US states, so there is some potential transference possibilities here. Montana especially would be wise to study this take and apply it to their unfortunate rail situation.
Not as good as usual. Seven losses and counting so far.
FM-
I can’t see any benefit in this plan to Washington’s taxpayers. Seattle and Tacoma’s ports are already growing as fast as they can to keep with demand.
What benefits do you see for the State’s taxpayers ?
To be honest, very little, although one must consider the possible economic consequences of not doing anything to enhance rail infrastructure. The ports and the railroads seem to be the big winners in this, with in-state rail shippers getting some marginal benefits as well (assuming this isn’t a “grow or die” scenario).
That’s one reason I’d favor more of a user fee type financing scheme for the State’s portion of prospective funding rather than a total dependence on state highway fuel taxes. On a national level regarding possible federal funding for this project, I’m not even sure this plan aids US production and exports, but it certainly aids overseas importers. It may marginally aid in getting export grain to port, and if the proposed coal gasification plant at Kalama comes to fruition then the increased capacity through the Gorge will help.
It doesn’t necessarily aid in lumber shipments from Puget Sound since the Stampede Pass line still has available capacity for such normal height shipments, and since the plan doesn’t include getting UP trackage rights over Stampede, their general cargo shipments out of Puget Sound are not benefitted.
All in all, I’d say the biggest beneficiary of this plan is BNSF alone, with the Puget Sound ports a distant second, and in-state rail shippers an even more distant third.
Ports grow - or they begin to die. One plans for growth before decline sets in. Once decline begins to affect a ports infrastructure the costs to play catch up with the ports that have kept up with the times becomes truly astronomical.
My understanding is that most ports are already ahead of the railroads’ ability to deliver. So now it seems they are having to get involved in railroad capacity expansion projects themselves just so they can assure themselves they’ll still be viable competitors with other ports.
If I may play “AntiGates” for a second here - This seems to be an incremental start to eventual nationalization of the rail system. Port involvement here, state involment there, fed involvement everywhere…
A blurb from the State GUV on the port’s initiative, from ProgressiveRailroading.com…
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=10115