Latest Union Pacific Extortion Letter to California Shows That FRA and Possibly Congressional Legislative Guidance Are Needed
Earlier this week, the Union Pacific Railroad distributed to the media, particuarly the San Jose Mercury News, their letter to the Authority of April 23, 2010. In it they outline their most forceful position thus far of not cooperating with high speed rail.
Significantly, their letter above asserts the following claims:
- No overpass or underpass structure can touch their right-of-way nor can any other HSR facilities. Nor will they sell any of their land. Even though their right-of-way often is hundreds of feet wide or more and has no prospect of development.
- They will fight to keep HSR off land adjacent to their tracks that they or their customers do not even own, reasoning that many hundreds of miles of land adjacent to tracks needs to be kept “banked” for freight rail purposes.
Read the whole letter here:
04 23 2010 Union Pacific Letter
Those of us who have followed the issue of the freight railroads’ cooperation with conventional passenger rail and high speed rail in particular are disappointed but hardly surprised by UP’s maddening stance.
UP’s position on this issue is in stark contrast to that of some other freight railroads, particularly the BNSF Railway. BNSF has had a cooperative relationship with the Authority thus far. BNSF seems to get that where their ROW is adjacent to HSR, HSR development will be a “tide that lifts all boats” improving their tracks and getting them needed grade separation and other improvements.
Moreover, BNSF’s CEO Matt Rose has been one of the most prominent corporate cheerleaders of passenger rail and HSR in America. Though he predictably asserts that his company must be made financially whole when passenger trains use its facilities, he has also advocated public investment in both conventional rail and HSR infrastructure.
One can speculate on the culture of the management and board of directors at UP that leads them to bash passenger rail development at every turn, though it is now a public policy priority of the Obama Administration and Congress. Perhaps they are holding out for a 20th century business-as-usual policy from Washington. That is, no passenger rail development and more Bush-era zero Amtrak budgets.
It is also fair to draw conclusions from UP’s ties to the Bush administration (Dick Cheney was on their board until 2000) and their strong donations to Republicans starting in the late nineties to the middle of the ’00s.
UP’s argument is in essence “This is my private property and you and your public purposes be damned.” And it is quite untenable. UP doesn’t own any conventional piece of private property like a building or farm or home. Their railroad occupies massive linear swaths of the state of California. Drive for an hour in California today and you’ll very likely get over or under or on their ROW. Unlike any conventional private property, railroads often own the only tenable transportation path for passenger rail development. This land was essentially given to their predecessor companies more than a hundred years ago through outright grants or bargain basement prices by a government that had just conquered this land and was intent on its successful settlement.
Fortunately, UP’s extortion letter to the taxpayers can be responded to by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Congress via appropriate regulatory guidance. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act’s $8 billion of rail development money will not be effective if the regulatory environment permits freight rail tactics like UP’s to continue. The FRA should move towards mandating BNSF’s approach to HSR development. That is, mandate that freight railroads must cooperate on such basic items as under and overpass structures in such a way as the cost to the public is minimized and the freight railroads’ business is not adversely impacted. Clarify the right of HSR development agencies to acquire through eminent domain freight railroad properties adjacent to their tracks, particularly ones that they are holding for no purpose at all. Their property in Gilroy that they steadfastly refuse to negotiate for in their April 23rd letter can be fairly called “blighted” in its current state.
UP’s letter mentions the derailment safety issue of having an HSR ROW next to a conventional railroad ROW. This issue should be taken up by the FRA. Mitigations that UP mentions such as crash walls in narrow areas, intrusion detection systems (Los Angeles Metro Rail’s Green Line, for instance, uses an intrusion detection system for its freeway ROW to detect cars that could jump the K-rail), may very well be good approaches after some study by an independent regulatory agency and not a freight railroad bent on stopping HSR at all costs.
An HSR right-of-way and an adjacent freight infrastructure can be a “tide that lifts all boats”. That most seem to get this except the Union Pacific Railroad is unfortunate.
Thanks so much to Dennis Lytton for this post. He makes some very good points about UP’s stance and what needs to be done to challenge it.
Maybe CA4HSR could make this one of its priorities. This could end up as one of the most important issues beyond obtaining the funding for the project.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 2:52 am
I would certainly like to see CHSRA board members and our supporters in the state legislature publicaly call for federal regulatory guidence and call UP’s tactics what they are. Extortion. It would great to read that in the LA Times and SJMN.
Dennis I also want to thank you in posting this. I grow so tired of the this “win-lose” philosphy of the largest corporations in this country. These people seem so intent on winning over others, by behaving in incredibly unsocial ways, that they loss site of the fact that they usually end up losing also at some point. BP is a case in point. They “won” when they got Bush and his cronies to give them a pass on regulatory oversite, but now they “lose” because now they are going to have to pay billions from faulty, unregulated equipment. Same goes for Wall Street. They have one in the short term, but now a large majority of public hates them and utlimately they will lose.
Same goes for UP. They can play to win now, but I feel these aggressive anti-society tactics will surely backfire on them, ulitmately reducing their influence because the public will turn against them as well.
I am not sure what causes this sickness in these mega institutions, but I thinky you hit it on the head that they are in denial about how the world is changing and they actually believe that they can zero out the efforts all over the country to develop HSR and other passenger rail.
They need to be aggressively fought.
Victor Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I’d say Absolute Power and Greed.
flowmotion Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Yep, wanting a 25′ freight ROW through San Jose makes them Enron+Halliburton+Lehman Bros all rolled into one mega-evil baby-eating corporation :)
UPRR’s agressive protection of their status quo might be disappointing, but its a perfectly understandable position. What’s could possibly be in it for them? Nothing.
(Note also every one of these UPRR ‘love letters’ makes it absolutely clear that they aren’t negotiating. This seems to be a matter of principle for them – “Stay away from our operations”.)
Peter Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Yeah, but they ARE still negotiating, even though they say they won’t sell. Have you ever been involved in major negotiations? Parties with the upper hand will always use that tactic to drive up their profits or minimize their losses.
We have the PDF of the letter, along with a lot of other source material at:
http://www.calhsr.com/resources/union-pacific-letter/
Some people have asked how we got a copy. In California, it is fairly simple. If there is a public document you want, you just ask and they almost always have to give it to you. The tricky part is knowing what to ask for…
We’ve also posted the ROW maps for the Monterey Highway for any super geeks.
http://www.calhsr.com/resources/monterey-highway-row-maps/
Dennis Lytton Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Yes, your maps are super geeky! I used to work around local planning uses for a councilman in Los Angeles so I’m familar with planning geeks and their maps.
“The tricky part is knowing what to ask for…” Well now that’s now how it’s supposed to work . . .
Dennis Lytton
If only Dennis’s post was an episode of 60 Minutes.
Peter Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Or an episode of 24. We could have Jack Bauer fighting the baddies at UP to prevent them from running freight trains on HSR tracks.
synonymouse Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
This project was compromised when they caved to Palmdale developers.
I’m beginning to doubt about the feasibility of this project during my life time. Obviously in America the power is in the hands of many private interests that trump the public interest through legal action etc. No government authority seems to have the ability to impose action for the sake of public good. Here we have NIMBYS in the Peninsula and a Freight Railroad Co. all capable to stop anything just by saying “Nyet” (and I’m not even mentioning the environmental group, which also will have some demands and maybe threaten legal action as well). Basically this project will be completed only if it becomes a cumbersome compromise among these various groups. It will be the design of the proverbial horse which becomes a camel after its design is compromised in a committee. Assuming this project will ever be finished, it will be extremely expensive and also have so many limitations to satisfy all these interest groups, that in the end it will be everything but “high speed”. Sorry to interject some pessimism, but sometime to get things done you need the power that some foreign governments have to impose things. Check with the Chinese if they allow NIMBYs to be heard in public hearing. Well! Maybe an hour or two before being sent to the execution chamber.
Damn tootin’!
“I cave in immediately and give you everything you want at the outset. And what’s your counter offer?” has always proven a more winning negotiation tactic. (See for example US healthcare “reform”.) Why doesn’t the Union Pacific Corporation understand this?
Dan Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Gotta say i agree with you here…
Their concerns are legitimate, and need to be dealt with. I see three options:
(1) pay them enough that it’s worth it.
(2) push through gov’t mandates/regulations to compel them to yeild to HSR.
(3) find enough money to purchase a new right-of-way which doesn’t involve them.
//dan.
James Fujita Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
“Pay them enough” sounds like a bribe to me. I’d be willing to bet that the bribe would be mighty expensive, especially for a project which can hardly afford to waste dollars. And there’s still no guarantee that the money would go towards safety instead of the CEO’s pocket.
Option #3 assumes that there’s a place where this ROW exists which won’t be curvaceous or avoid city centers.
I say, hit them with option #2. UP wouldn’t exist in the first place without government subsidies dating back to the 1860s, they owe us.
PeakVT Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 12:18 am
4) Have CALPERS buy a controlling interest in UNP.
It would take about $18B, or perhaps less, as the current price looks a bit optimistic.
UP’s argument basically boils down to two points:
a) any HSR alignment on, above or immediately adjacent to the UPRR ROW would expose the freight operator to high liability risk in the event of a derailment (or cargo spill) that led to track fouling and a catastrophic follow-on accident (or extended loss of HSR service).
b) in addition, close proximity would prevent UPRR from constructing spur tracks into the properties of (new) freight rail customers located on the side blocked by HSR infrastructure.
Let’s examine these claims in order. UPRR, like other privately owned freight rail carriers in North America, is a for-profit business serving customers west of the Mississippi. The business model is based on lowest-cost-per-ton because the continent is vast and largely devoid of internal waterways. This is in marked contrast to Europe, Japan and to some extent even China, where freight rail tends to compete primarily against fastest-delivery-time trucking.
The consequence is that US freight rail operators rely on extra-long, super-heavy trains running at modest speeds on minimally maintained infrastructure. Forcing the company to invest a lot more in signaling plus track maintenance breaks its business model because the profit margins are already thin and the UPRR network so vast. In addition, freight rolling stock tends to be owned outright by the freight customers rather than leased. Tighter maintenance on that rolling stock could easily prompt them to go out of business, relocate or switch to trucking. Unfortunately, the only way to reduce the risk of major derailments and cargo spills is investment in signaling and maintenance.
Ergo, from UPRR’s perspective, HSR anywhere near the legacy tracks is a threat to the company’s long-term survival. Right now, it wants to be in the business of hauling freight, not making a quick on-off buck by selling precious right of way or diminishing the value of what it already owns. In other words, UPRR is the ultimate ueber-NIMBY. It would be smart to get out of this politically well-connected company’s line of fire wherever possible – e.g. in the Central Valley, where BNSF may be more amenable to co-operation between Fresno and Stockton.
Of course, acknowledging UPRR’s position is not at all the same thing as agreeing with it. In particular, the argument that the company should have a veto on rail development on land it doesn’t even own is totally unacceptable. If a freight train derails or spills cargo onto property adjacent to the company’s right of way, the operator is liable for the associated damage and service outages. This is already the case today.
That said, it is fair to insist that the HSR system include technology to reliably detect unsafe track conditions ahead of fast-moving trains and automatically apply the brakes to avoid a follow-on accident or at least mitigate its severity. This is actually less onerous than it sounds since 24/7 track surveillance is anyhow necessary to guard against acts of sabotage/terrorism against the track, wildlife breaking through fences, vehicles ramming supports, local flooding of trench or tunnel sections, earthquakes – you name it. To the extent such surveillance can be supported using modern vision and other software, it should be. While operators excel at interpreting off-design conditions and taking appropriate action, but detecting them in the first place is a mind-numbing process that is prone to human error.
Karl (In Santa Cruz) Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Your reasoning make sense – and it would suggest that the UP ought to be against *anything* next to its ROW – without regard whether that anything be highways or HSR. And has the UP indicated that it is equally refusing highway crossings in the over/under crossing would require a footprint on UP land?
But looking at it the other way round, it seems to me that UP is also saying “our trains are likely to splatter themselves across the landscape, so to prevent a disaster, we require a lot of space outside of the right-of-way.”
Were I someone living in, say Atherton or Menlo Park or Palo Alto, with a house alongside the tracks I’d wonder “Gee is UP saying that they foresee that some evening the UP will send a train across Alma into my house?”
A few years back the Hearst company wanted to build houses near Hearst Castle – and to get around coastal regulations they dug up subdivision documents from the late 1800′s. Similarly it might be interesting to go back to the original grants of property to the UP and see whether the UP is living up to the terms and conditions of those grants.
Are we ready for “The Octopus, Part II”?
Dennis Lytton Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
I doubt any 19th documents would be binding now in the way many adovates would like it to be against the freights. We must stand on modern laws and legal principles against UP. Passenger rail serves an important public policy purpose. Railroads are an oligopoly (sic) that owns massive linear splits of the state and are thus sensibly regulated.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Metro North trains… well a train… makes a ceremonial stop once a day at Manitou because the agreement arranged in the 1800s with the landowner was that a train would stop there at least once a day. In many places the railroad doesn’t own the land, it’s an easement granted by the original owner that exists as long as the railroad uses it. Otherwise the land reverts to the original owner. It can get very interesting when a railroad decides to abandon a line and they have to figure out what happened with the surrounding land in the intervening 150 years. So contracts signed in the 19th century are enforceable.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
The US Constitution is an 18th century document, and it’s still binding. Historical precedent is important here, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the rights of the legacy railroads. Never forget that railroad law is the foundation for corporation law. Legally challenging UP is going to be a tough, tough, uphill battle.
Ever heard of this case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme…
Nathanael Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
In fact, it would be entirely straightforward to seize the entirety of UP by eminent domain. All you need is the support of the *Surface Transportation Board*, a federal agency which has nearly total power over Union Pacific.
Issues like this will always occur as long as a freight company owns track/ROW which is used for passenger rail. Most European countries avoid this problem as generally one company owns the entire national rail network and runs all the rail services on their track, whether passenger or freight or both.
America by contrast has a huge amount of independent rail operators each with their own track. Passenger rail here is poor as the trains are forced to use track owned and maintained by freight companies, who have no incentive to upgrade track and every incentive to prioritize freight traffic over passenger trains. These two reasons (poorly maintained slow track and and having to give way to freight trains) is what makes Amtrak slow and unreliable.
Whilst an all-encompassing national rail company is probably out of the question for America, passenger rail would be greatly improved if Caltrans (for example) purchased track which is used by both passenger and freight rail. It could then operate dispatch and conduct repairs/upgrades to the line as necessary. The train companies themselves would provide the rolling stock and the staff to run them.
A similar system is in place in the UK, where Network Rail owns the entire rail infrastructure but passenger and freight services are run by dozens of different companies. Network Rail is responsible to the government and ensures that the freight and passenger rail companies co-exist on the same track. This system is far from perfect, but given the plethora of rail companies operating in the US it may be a way of getting them to work together.
Another advantage to the UK system is that you can buy one ticket from Network Rail which lets you travel on trains run by several different companies during the course of your journey. A journey I regularly made required me to travel on three trains run by Virgin Trains, Northern Rail and Merseyrail, but I only needed to buy one ticket- Network Rail took the money and divided it between the three companies as appropriate.
thatbruce Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Is it possible that UP is playing a long game and is wanting to eventually force the Authority into seizing parts of the UP ROW, with compensation being trackage rights and no liability for UPRR’s operations, to say nothing of the cost savings associated with someone else performing line maintenance?
Nathanael Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
If they have sense I would expect that that would be exactly what they would do. That is the stated policy of NS and is not far off from the known policy of BNSF, and they’ve both made gobs of money from said policies.
I have seen no evidence that UP management has sense, however.
Just to illustrate that last point, imagine buying a ticket in Claremont for
Redwood City; you’d take LA Metro rail to Union Station, change for a HSR train, then change again at Palo Alto for Caltrain. Caltrans (or whoever) would sell you the ticket and reimburse the three different operators accordingly.
With HSR California is building a state-wide rail network. It needs a state-wide authority to make the system work.
Peter Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Verkehrsbund Kalifornien?
Jon Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Something like that. I’m just saying, many problems with US passenger rail seem to be organisational rather than technological.
Peter Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
More like regulatory problems leading to economic infeasibility due to lack of ability to implement technological advances.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
It’s not lack of ability leading to economic infeasibility; it’s the other way around. FRA regulations force lightweight rail service to use dedicated tracks, which is technologically feasible but cost-prohibitive.
At any rate, abolishing the FRA’s current regulations is much, much more important than implementing a Verkehrsverbund. Free transfers to the subway aren’t going to save a rush hour-only, 30 tons/axle commuter train; an extra fare isn’t going to doom a lightweight, rapid-transit style EMU service.
Peter Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
FRA regulations kill the ability to implement cost-effective technological advances. I stand by y logic.
What’s maddening about all of this is that BNSF is in exactly the same boat as UP; they are in the for-profit business of shipping turnips or Chinese electronics as quickly and cheaply as possible; any downturn which affects UP will likely affect BNSF as well. And yet you don’t see BNSF sending off NIMBY letters.
There is something in UP corporate culture which says “[give the middle finger to] passenger rail.” Every delay on the Coast Starlight should come with a disclaimer: “This delay brought to you by Union Pacific”, and the same goes for Cal HSR construction.
Twice today!
That’s how many times I crossed over the UPRR ROW in Gilroy. For the record, haven’t heard the freight horn all day; such a busy line it is (sarcasm). James Fujita is right on with his post. UPRR position is so maddening that one has to wonder what there real motive is to act like a “super NIMBY.” If it’s good for BNSF, why not UPRR? It has to be a case of “SHOW ME THE MONEY!” because all the other reasons given (liability, risks of derailment) are just outrageous. I mean, freeways cross over/under/beside UPRR all over the Bay Area (and most likely down in LA as well); where the risk there? Heavily populated areas/neighborhoods abut UPRR ROW’s; risk? Heck, doesn’t BART in the East Bay travel alongside and over UPRR for most of the route?
But alas, I won’t worry to much about UPRR’s position; perhaps they are looking for a little more cash or a situation similar to what they enjoy on the Peninsula. Regardless, if push comes to shove, the Feds will “handle” UPRR and slap them silly into the 21st Century.
Tolls on interstate highways, for trucking as well as passenger cars, could help the freight railways adjust to a new business model. It is incredible that the US government spent tens of billions of dollars to build grade-separated roadways for freight trucking. Were the freight railways really so despised in the 1940′s, or did no one foresee that giving away the roads for free would be anticompetitive to rail? If trucks had a to pay half the cost of maintenance and construction for rural interstates and state highways (where they are the main users; the weight of a truck causes 1000 times the damage of one car), the railways would suddenly be competitive for delivering higher-value freight.
wu ming Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
it’s a lot harder to unionize the entire trucking sector on the highways than rail workers. the interstates were insurance against a general strike IMO, especially given cold war paranoia about organized labor.
An HSR right-of-way and an adjacent freight infrastructure can be a “tide that lifts all boats”.
Why should that be the case? The taxpayer should not be an obligation to lift UPRR/BNSF’s boat.
HSR does not interoperate with freight rail, and there is no fundamental reason HSR must parallel freight lines. Unless an alternatives analysis demonstrates parallel rail as superior, every other possible route should be on the table. Especially in “green field” areas of the Central Valley. By the time they buy-off the freight company and grade-separate every rusty old spur line, there is no assurance this will be the cheapest/best route.
And it is interesting that the Authority is still planning to use UPRR ROW near Gilroy even though their last EIR was tossed out on that issue.
Tony D. Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
“And it is interesting that the Authority is still planning to use UPRR ROW near Gilroy even though their last EIR was tossed out on that issue.” Uhh, no flow! Go back and do your homework on that one, will yah. And again, stop making it sound as if we’re all beholden to “The Almighty!” UPRR.
“The taxpayer should not be an obligation to lift UPRR/BNSF’s boat.” You just don’t get it, do yah flow!
synonymouse Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Right on, UP. It just warms my heart to see Bechtel told where to put its scheme.
Have all you would be nationalizers forgotten Conrail? Or the USRA? The guvmint can’t run a railroad any more than it can secure its borders. Besides the feds are preoccupied with foreign wars.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Conrail made the PC wreck something that NS and CXS big give globs of cum over…..thats what some investment will do …stop acting like HSR wont do the same..
Nathanael Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Conrail was pretty well run compared to Penn Central — and was better run than the current state of the parts of the system taken over by private derailment expert CSX. What planet have you been living on, syn?
flowmotion Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Hope your internet bender was worth the hangover, Tony.
And yeah, I don’t get it. Help me understand by showing me where CHSRA did any analysis other than drawing lines over existing railroad tracks.
Brian Stanke Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Have you bothered to read their planning documents going back to 1996? Really the whole “greenfield” alignment idea was discussed and decided on in the 2001-2005 time period.
Just because you didn’t pay attention back then, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I am sorry if this whole project was a big surprise to you in 2008. Hell, I’m sorry it took 12+ years to get this far in planning. I wish we started building 5 years ago. But a long process is how we do things in America. Stop pretending that none of it happened, if you weren’t to be at each meeting though.
flowmotion Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
And was the possibility of HSR being denied access to UPRR ROW factored into these studies? If so, what’s the Plan B? Surely it was studied extensively, according to you.
I have been following this project more closely than 99% of the citizens of this state, so if you would like to accuse me of ignorance, that is fine, it just demonstrates what a extremely lousy job CHSRA has done in communicating their route choices. Again, where is it?
And I will speculate that you and Tony are taking the snotty know-it-all flamer approach, rather than explaining the logic, because you have actually have no clue what the logic actually was.
Nathanael Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
HSR cannot be denied access to UPRR ROW.
UPRR is talking purest bullshit. Even without STB support (which would allow for the outright seizure of UPRR right-of-way), UP has zero rights over the Monterey Highway right of way — no rights at all. Any lawsuit they file over that would be thrown out on summary judgment. Furthermore they have no right to prevent overcrossings by other railroads. In fact they don’t even have the right to prevent *at-grade* crossings. A new railroad has the absolute, unconditional right to cross UP’s tracks at its own expense, regardless of how much trouble is caused to UP. That’s 19th century law — the same law which gave UP the railroad lines it currently has. The only agency which can override that is the Surface Transportation Board, and you can bet they won’t be carrying water for UP.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 12:25 am
As long as it rips thru PA and MenloPark I dont care,,I want to hear Brown/Enlge whinnnnn
With this brewing controversy between UP and the Authority, now would be the time for CA lawmakers Simitian and Lowenthal to step up to the plate and show whether they really do support HSR. If they are concerned about the cost, the placement of routes, the look no further than UP trying to throw a monkey wrench into all the planning. I say for the two esteemed state senators, put up or shut up. Write a law that forces UP’s hand within the State of California. By crafting a law that explicitly allows for HSR to use state-owned lands adjacent to active rail routes or corridors, that would save money, save planning and get the ball rolling on revising outdated CPUC general orders about railroads that have outlived their utility.
Don’t hold your breath on UP or the FRA changing. ever. I mean unless, are the FRA brass presidential appointees replaceable by the stroke of a pen? If not, forget it. The authority should look at cooperating with BNSF wherever possible, and using alternative land / row for everything else. To hell with UP. They are forever throwing their weight around. Ignore them and leave them to lumber along in the 19th century. Just go around. I can tell you though that waiting around for the FRA to step in and deal with this will be like waiting for good ski conditions on Santa monica Blvd. It just isn’t going to happen. The US railroad industry and the FRA are not going to budge. We’ll be here till the cows come home. Just freakin go around.
rafael Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 6:15 am
If avoiding UP were trivial, CHSRA would be doing it already. The problem is that UP happens to be in many of the corridors that are the most attractive for HSR construction and operations: San Jose to Gilroy, Sacramento to south Stockton, south Stockton to south Fresno, east Bakersfield to the northern approach to the Tehachapis, the southern approach to Palmdale and last not least, Redondo Junction to Colton. All told, fully 50% of CHSRA’s planned network calls for HSR track to be constructed on land currently owned by UPRR or else newly acquired land very close to it.
The alternatives usually involve acquiring land from many parties, at least some of which would entail eminent domain proceedings. In California politics, that’s a third rail. Other proposals call for nose-bleed expensive tunnel alignments, freeway widening projects, beet field stations and/or severe restrictions on feasible top speeds through certain areas. All of those make HSR a less attractive proposition and, both CHSRA and UPRR know that full well. It’s just that UPRR couldn’t care less, it’s a private company with an established, profitable business model in a vital but oligopolistic industry.
jimsf Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Well then CHSRA is screwed because Washington is not going to force UP to do anything. You can bet on that.
jimsf Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 9:17 am
They can use bnsf from stockton to bakersfield. There is plenty of room to use 101 south of san jose and having a station on the east side of gilroy is not a big deal. From palmdale to the san fernando valley I don’t think they are on the row because they are tunneling a lot right?
I do see UPs point. If I had a railroad and lots of adjacent land I wouldn’t give it up either. its more valuable than any cash lump sum. I would offer to lease it CHSRA though for a set amount of time with a lot terms and conditions. I think that the walls between freight and hsr are reasonable for at grade sections, and think the request that any supports for elevated and flyover sections be far enough away from freight tracks. Given the number of derailments, and freight operations are pretty sloppy, Id feel safer being well out of the way. I had already assumed that in any place where hsr and freight share row, that there would be complete physical separation.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:10 am
The land around the ROW south of San Jose will never be developed for any heavy industry that would make them real money..talk about nimbys..a steel mill or oil refinery!! at best some small argabuisness plant..if anything it would be more housing tracts. Now the valley is a main line but we do have BNSF thou not as good as the UP it would save us the battles where HSR really needs it..ie south of SJ and getting out to I-15 and San Diego..
rafael Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:28 am
2. The primary issues with the BNSF ROW between south Fresno and south Stockton are
a) the twist and turns through residential areas in Fresno, which has locked horns with BNSF over this issue for more than a century. Grade separations would be welcome, but the noise from the additional rail traffic would not be. From CHSRA’s point of view, the speed limits imposed by the tight corners would make it impossible to meet the 2h40m target for the LA-SF non-stop line haul time. A western bypass at grade would be more attractive, but it would not serve the downtown area and bisect prime farmland (though existing roads would be grade separated).
b) the BNSF ROW runs through a residential district of Merced. Given the 220mph target speed for express trains, it might make sense to consider a greenfield ROW section between Planada and Castle airport, where the county’s HSR station would then probably end up. Modesto would be served at E. Briggsmore at the eastern edge of town. On the plus side, that would be intermodal with Amtrak San Joaquin service, the only such station north of Bakersfield.
b) the BNSF ROW crosses the UPRR ROW at a right angle in south Stockton, which would force HSR trains heading up to Sacramento to slow down very severely. It might be possible to acquire a greenfield ROW about a mile east of CA-99, but then yet another downtown area would not be served by HSR. Moreover, there would still be the bigger issue of reaching downtown Sacramento in the face of implacable statewide opposition from UPRR.
2. There is indeed plenty of land that is not built up east of 101 in south Santa Clara county and Gilroy might actually benefit from a station at the periphery – many trains will be traveling through there at high speed. The issue is getting through south San Jose, given that the city is adamant about developing SJ Diridon into a regional transit hub.
3. UPRR’s ROW in the High Desert runs from Hesperia to Palmdale to Tehachapi. The ROW between Palmdale and Burbank is owned by SCRRA (Metrolink), but it’s only relevant for HSR in a short section of south Palmdale and from Sylmar on down.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:56 am
On the plus side, that would be intermodal with Amtrak San Joaquin service, the only such station north of Bakersfield.
There aren’t going to be any conventional Amtrak services in the Central Valley once HSR goes all the way to Sacramento.
jimsf Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 11:26 am
yes there will be.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
No there won’t there won’t be enough riders.
Look at this http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/CALIFORNIA09.pdf
Add up the ridership at the stations that won’t have an HSR station. There’s 940 passengers a day. 500 of them are at Hanford. People in Hanford or Visalia will be getting on the airport style shuttle bus to the HSR station if they don’t manage to get a station. That leaves 440 passengers a day.
If traffic is roughly equal that’s 220 a day in each direction. How many trains a day need to run to handle 220 passengers? Two RDCs coupled together traveling in each direction would be overkill.
There isn’t going to be any conventional speed railroad service in between Sacramento and Bakersfield.
jimsf Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
yes there is because the majority of the ridership 1. isn’t going to pay hsr prices, 2. will not ride trains without checked baggage, and 3 by the time phase two is done the san joaquin trains will be continuing north to redding as a full valley backbone. not to mention hsr, in addition to missing a few stations in the valley also will not have service between skn-aca-mtz-ric-emy-okj. And at such time that hsr has completed phase two, which realistically is 30 years away, san joa trains may cease increasing service but will maintain existing service and until then, additional trains are going to be added as well as service to the north. hard to say though for sure what will be happening in california 30 years from now anyway. with the current expanding obstacles, we may not have a phase one completed by then. I suppose if hsr falls apart the state could revert to incremental 110 upgrades on existing service for a fraction of the cost. which is not preferable, but better than nothing.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
The low low Amtrak fares available in California are available because the state provides a big big subsidy. The state provides that subsidy for many many reasons. Low low fares isn’t high on the lid of reasons. Once HSR is meeting the objectives the current subsidies provide the big big subsidies are going to disappear. The low low fares are going to go up up up. The skinflint crowd is going to go Greyhound. Assuming Greyhound isn’t clobbered by HSR.
The people who like to check bags are going to be very disappointed that the old timey trains that checked bags don’t run anymore. It’s not a big enough market to make conventional trains profitable. They can sit around in the station’s Starbucks with the sleeping car enthusiasts and bitch about how train travel is so uncivilized these days.
Last time I checked Redding isn’t between Sacramento and Bakersfield. You want to call the DMUs that shuttle between Redding and Sacramento “San Joaquins” go right ahead.
jimsf Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
There are zero plans for dmus to redding. only plans for regular old normal trains. Starting with, the extension of trains 701 northbound and 704, I believe it is, southbound.
shouldn’t you be shoveling snow or something right now.
Spokker Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 2:31 am
Small towns like Amtrak. I think they’ll fight to keep the slow trains.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 11:09 am
The route using the BNSF would of course be less than required..what are we to do? thou using the BNSF I have seen alternatives for it to cut over north of Fresno and take the plannned route thru downtown then again back to BNSF at the point where the big yard that the city is fighting for.
As far as UP I have never seen why HSR cant use the median of 99?? no from Caltrans? no from UP then use the other side of the highway…UP is next to it the whole way HSR on the other side even if it has to be an elevated line.
rafael Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Afaik, there is no available median in the Fresno section of CA-99. A 16-mile section could perhaps be made available by upgrading selected existing roads west of the city to create a bypass expressway for through traffic, e.g. W Central + Chateau Fresno Ave + a new road bridge across the San Joaquin River, roughly 22 miles.
See this MAP. This concept would permit an HSR station that is at least near downtown, but it would likely be more expensive than a regular rail bypass of the city that would leave the freeway unchanged.
The UP s number one stock holder is none other the P Anschutz..Billionare Neocon owner oil/railroad barron..He also owns the stupid examiner chain…as lame as it is he runs this paper in SF and everyday they throw eggs in Obamas face ..right here in SF..because he has the money to do so…the paper is a rag given away for free..ie it losses money but who cares if your worth billions..HSR is the Presidents dream..so they the Necons will try and ruin it…As a state that UP makes a huge amount of money off us with the ports its time we can also be a Bitch..We payed for that Alameada corridor..UP if it wants to be an Ahole will now pay the Taxpayer up front full cost and We also wanty UP to fully Green power all UP ROW if they want to servethe ports..RED neck Ohama will stop real quick with the arrogant act
jimsf Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 9:06 am
I’m gald someone else agrees that the sfexaminer is a right wing rag. I thought maybe it was just my imagination. No wonder they have to give it away free in this town. And yes, the whole paper is dedicated to spreading anti obama, propaganda. They don’t even try to pretend to be objective. The problem is, though, what person or agency in washington has to the power to “make” UP do something it doesn’t want to do? If its congress, they’re plate is full and they aren’t going to make time to deal with this, if its the FRA, they, like most oversight agencies, are not really there to police and oversee the entities in their charge, but really exist to aid and abet them.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Yes strange..the paper took a sharp right turn inthe OP section when he bought it a few years ago..As for HSR it can have pro HSR articles when one of the locals report something and anti-HSR if coming from there nation wide desk…they did back prop1A thou ..once again I think that was local..
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Fortunately I don’t think anyone actually pays attention to the Examiner any more.
I don’t see why the CHSRA is so set on following freight ROWs. I know there isn’t any other reasonable space in urban areas, but f you can build the tracks over green field, then don’t bother with the freight companies. UPRR’s position is understandable, even if it’s disingenuous for them to say that “California’s economic and environmental needs cannot be served if freight rail development is summarily prohibited by high-speed rail.”
In the case of Fresno, it might be in the public interest to seize UPRR’s ROW, build a four-track elevated structure, and route all of the city’s rail traffic over it, though UPRR would have to be dragged kicking and screaming.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 8:46 am
To some extent it’s because in some circumstances it has logistical economic, environmental and planning justification.
It sounds good, and sometimes it even does make sense.
But to the larger extent it was to preempt political opposition to the bond measure from the farm lobby (my field is cut in half!) while throwing the mush-brained sub-segment of the environmentalist sector a bone in the form of talk of “existing transportation corridors” and “downtown TOD” and the like. After all, bad old UP Corp. was going to be twiddling its mustachios and fingering its revolvers anyway, so why not fob off people who are cheaper and more naive and more of an immediate political risk?
It was a policy that cost them nothing to set, and paid off short-term (which is all that counts) to the tune of $10 billion.
synonymouse Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 9:40 am
What farm fields are going to be cut in half by paralleling I-5?
Joey Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 10:27 am
This isn’t about that. But yes, freeways and railroad corridors are often chosen for this reason.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Freight ROWs are beneficial for 2 main reasons:
1. You minimize disruption to others by using an already-existing railroad corridor.
2. Freight rail corridors in California are centrally located, since they came before most cities (and therefore most of your urban density in the state is located on those corridors.
It might be more expensive to do it this way, but you also get a MUCH better system that is more profitable and carriers more riders, while fueling greater urban densities.
synonymouse Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 12:18 am
Your statement reflects exactly why the UP is so disenchanted with the hsr – you immediately assume an imperial and appropriative attitude toward the private property of the UP. Eminent domain is not just implicit in your tone it’s just this side of explicit.
All the attacks on this site against the UP only serve to reconfirm that rr’s concerns and suspicions. Namely a government attempt to take their property or interfere with their operations. At least the UP is not trying to boondoggle the hsr the way the SP did with BART by using its influence at Bechtel. Or maybe you’d like the hsr built to Indian broad gauge like BART.
The UP doesn’t need to concern itself with sandbagging the hsr. Between warring with the Peninsula and the Tehachapis detour the CHSRA is screwing up without any outside help.
Joey Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 1:51 am
W
T
F
Seriously, no one has any desire to interfere with UPRR’s operations. The ROW would be reconstructed with minimal disruptions to freight service at no cost to UPRR, and they would get a fair price for the portion of it that they did sell (and it would be sold – state agencies cannot exercise eminent domain against railroads). They might even be able to get the CHSRA to double track it all for free. Evidently BNSF sees the value in this, while UPRR does not.
Spokker Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 2:28 am
The government giveth and the government taketh away.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Does the government ever take away?
Dennis Lytton Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 2:40 am
UP’s private property often follows the best railway routes and effectively splits the north-south length of the state in two places. The reasoning in UP’s April 23rd letter basically says that we cross their private property at their consent and that UP gets to set the price on crossing this “spatial” monopoly resourse. The notion that the right to private property is an absolute religion would render the constitution and its laws a “suicide pact”.
Nobody wants to take away the ability of UP to move their freight trains as they do now. UP’s dedication to stopping HSR versus the socialy responsible course of BNSF gives away their true motivation. UP’s board and managers are hopeless aligned to anti-HSR denier politics.
Dennis Lytton
Nathanael Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
When you say “the private property of UP”, you mean “the public property granted to UP’s predecessors by the State of California and the Federal government, often with certain conditions regarding running of passenger trains, which conditions UP is not meeting”. Just to correct you.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
the whole passenger train thing was overridden in 1971. YMMV depending on who is doing the interpretation of how Amtrak was created.
meanwhile in sacramento – this in on the budget… governor
YesonHSR Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Im glad HSR got its money..love the little dig that it was 3 times as much as last year as if we are going to plan and start building a 40 billion dollar project on the tiny budget they have had before
I read in various articles that freight-line owners got their land for free. One post also mentioned that, in California, the value of land is what you paid for it.
If it is true, then the eminent domain compensation for UP should be $0.00.
Nathanael Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
West of approximately Illinois, practically all freight lines got their land for free, yes.
I wouldn’t expect too much help from Washington, if I were you. Whatever Anschutz (sp?) may think, HSR is not Obama’s pet project. The 2011 budget came out of the White House with just $1B for HSR. This DOT is generally for anything that isn’t autocentric: feet, bikes, buses, trams, light or heavy rail transit, Amtrak, HSR. But it isn’t wedded to any particular non-autocentric vehicle. If HSR is too hard, it’ll push for something else. FRA existed to regulate freight railroads and has been captured by them. The passenger rail people in FRA is largely revolving-door into or out of Amtrak. California HSR isn’t high on their list of priorities. They’ll give you some money from time to time (as long as they’ve got some), but don’t expect them to solve your problems.
To the extent that California HSR problems with UP are similar to other states’ problems with their freight carriers (NY and CSX, for example), there is some room for coordinated action through congressional alliances. But largely, California is on its own.
jimsf Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
^Thats what I thought. I’m sure something will work out in the end, but this is going to drag on forever.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
The problem in Upstate New York is nothing like in California. CSX has said it welcomes more passenger trains on its track, as long as they’re limited to 90 mph. Above 90 mph, it insists on some passenger-dedicated tracks in the same ROW.
UP is uniquely obstructionist, even toward FRA-compliant projects. In Houston, it’s insisted on a huge buffer for commuter rail in its ROW – I think 25 feet.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
yet they play reasonably nice in Chicago. Hmmm.
Nathanael Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
The passenger-dedicated tracks in the same ROW are a good idea anyway. The problem with CSX in NY has simply been that they have not been maintaining their tracks properly. NY has not been serious about putting in the money for the passenger-dedicated tracks, either. :(
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
NY spends great big gobs of money improving passenger tracks. Just not tracks owned by NS or CSX. There’s stretches here and there were they have come to agreements. Nice broad swath south of Albany that’s good for speeds higher than the Amtrak trains running on it.
Ah but in NY when CSX starts making noises about how valuable their ROW is all the tax assessors along the line can remind them that if it’s so valuable their assessment is too low and has been since they bought it from Conrail. Tax assessors have computers these days and can easily figure out how much that comes to with interest.
I don’t think removing the railroads’ protections is appropriate. This isn’t regular land after all, it does something no other land does, and it shouldn’t be allowed to condemned like it were so. NIMBYs would love to take out loud trains in their communities.
But UP’s lack of cooperation and outright obstruction makes the current situation untenable. And Congressional action is the only thing that can change this. I’ve been thinking about this, and I think Congress should empower the FRA or preferably the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to act as a binding arbitrator in these situations, to force a reasonable solution.
The STB already arbitrates rate disputes between railroads and their customers, they could also arbitrate rail ROW sharing between railroads and state/local governments. CHSRA is definitely making a reasonable offer, as evidenced by the deal they have with BNSF (grade separations, reconfigure/reconstruct tracks, widen ROW, maintain freight expansion ability, etc. at taxpayer expense in exchange for rail ROW to place dedicated passenger tracks). I don’t see how that isn’t a fair deal.
Of course, this all stems from the fact that our railways are privately owned. Most countries in the world own their railways, because it’s critical infrastructure just like roads, airports, seaports, canals, dams, etc. I’d prefer that in the long run the rail infrastructure be brought under state control and maintenance, with multiple private operators running the rolling stock. The existing railroads could be compensated by receiving credit on account from the infrastructure authority equal to the amount of their rail property. Admittedly, that could amount to hundreds of billions for all the railways in the country.