(The following story by Andrew Silva appeared on the San Bernardino Sun website on July 11.)
COLTON, Calif. — The Union Pacific train pointing west sat still for at least 20 minutes Tuesday afternoon as two BNSF Railway trains heading south passed under the 10 Freeway.
“That’s costing them money,” said Arlis Childs, a project manager under contract with San Bernardino Associated Governments, or Sanbag, the county’s transportation authority.
Colton Crossing is a major bottleneck for the 150 trains per day that pass through the four-way stop immediately south of the 10 and west of La Cadena Drive.
The first step in clearing that choke point is expected today when the Sanbag board votes on a $3.7 million contract to do the preliminary design and environmental review of separating the two rail lines.
Building a bridge to elevate the Union Pacific tracks over the BNSF Railway tracks could cost between $150 million and $200 million, and be finished in seven or eight years.
But Colton officials aren’t thrilled with the idea of roughly 1.3 miles of elevated track that would be even with the 10 Freeway at its highest point.
“There’s a community on the ground here that will have to live with these impacts for a long time to come,” said Daryl Parrish, Colton’s city manager.
City officials would like to see the project in a trench or tunnel instead of a bridge.
That could push the cost toward $1 billion, if it’s even possible from an engineering standpoint, Childs said.
“We’re not going to accept the first excuse that it costs too much,” Parrish said.
The engineering and environmental study is expected to take about two years and will include a look at up to five alternatives, including a trench or tunnel.
The idea of a bridge on the east-west Union Pacific line was proposed in 1999 by Caltrans, and is probably the easiest and most affordable, Childs said.
The entire project would stretch 1.7 miles from just west of South Rancho Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue and would be built between the 10 and the existing UP tracks, which would remain in place.
Any variation would have to be kept at a 1 percent grade or less, meaning the tracks would rise less than one foot for every 100 feet in length.
“The flatter it is, the faster they go,” Childs said.
Global trade into the ports in the next 20 years is expected to double or triple, meaning the already-jammed rail traffic could also double.
Allowing the trains to keep moving, instead of stopping and then starting the long process of rebuilding momentum, would reduce waits for motorists at rail crossings, reduce air pollution from idling trains and idling cars, and improve the flow of freight nationally.
There is no funding source identified to build the project, but public officials want to see the railroads pick up the bulk of the tab.
Any taxpayer money that goes to the crossing means less money for other road improvements, Parrish said.
Railroad officials said they support the project and will contribute, but the amount will have to be negotiated after a final design is chosen.
“This type of proposal not only has private benefits for the railroads, but to the public as well,” said Mark Davis, spokesman for UP.
Lena Kent of BNSF agreed.
“We think it’s good for both the railroads and the region as a whole,” she said.
It’s too early to say whether a trench or tunnel would be acceptable, both said.