(The following story by Alan Kandel appeared on the California Progress Report website on September 4.)
In some states (and countries), double- and even triple-track mainline rail corridors are a dime a dozen, but sadly, not in California. In a state, which lays claim to this nation’s two worst regions for particle and ozone pollution – the Los Angeles basin and the San Joaquin Valley – and the former for freeway congestion and gridlock, more double- and triple-tracked corridors would be just what the doctor ordered.
Here’s what having efficient double-/triple-track, freight and passenger train racetracks would mean. At the very least, this would speed up mainline rail-based goods and passenger movements considerably. It should go without saying why this is important. Greater efficiency translates into increased track capacity capability, which means far-improved operations and the more expeditious movement of more trains than what currently exists. That would mean less corresponding traffic on our roads and highways, and less highway and secondary road-based traffic means fewer emissions being released into the air and presumably a reduced number of motor vehicle-involved accidents. So why isn’t more being done to advance rail more in state? More than likely, money is the sticking point and maybe it’s not a priority?, but as to the latter, it should be.
Amazingly, status quo practices have been satisfactory up till now. But with expanding population totals in the offing, population increases foretelling of clogged freeways and congested if not “packed-like-sardines-in-a-can” airports and airplanes, some of that attributed to fewer flights because of a phenomenon called high gas prices, continuing the status quo just won’t do and why it’s important and time to get these multi-tracking projects into high gear now! But multi-tracking alone won’t solve the goods and people movement dilemma. More rolling stock and rail motive power will be needed as well. Once again, this is going to take money.
Between Chicago and southern California, Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s relatively fast steel-wheel-on-steel-rail conveyor belt which stretches across the mid-continent and southwest for some 1,500 miles, playing host to countless freights and a smattering of passenger movements here and there that just so happen to be reincarnations of their predecessor named trains or former selves, are testaments to their value and worth. This top-notch and first-rate iron racetrack is, for all intents and purposes, completely double-track except for several portions in New Mexico totaling less than 50 miles. Efforts are under way to have this completely double-tracked by 2010. This one shining example should be telling us Californians something, and is, but only to those paying close enough attention.
What multi-tracking allows for is the unencumbered, continuous movement of trains traveling in opposite directions. No more trains sitting in sidings waiting for opposing trains to roll by on the mainline portions of track before the sidelined trains get access to the mainlines themselves for further forwarding. The exception to this would be the sidelining of a lower-priority freight to let a higher-priority freight or passenger train overtake the one of lower priority, each of which would be traveling in the same direction, mind you. Such a scenario through the Tehachapi Mountains for both freight (and passenger) train movements would be welcome indeed. Currently, passenger trains are prohibited from operating over the Tehachapi’s, the exception of course being the occasional special excursion or freight-railroad-owned business train operation. Meanwhile, freight trains traveling in opposite directions traversing Tehachapi grade contend with 14 miles of single track, necessitating a number of trains taking sidings to allow other trains to move past them. Tehachapi Pass in southern California is but one example where double-tracking could alleviate 14 miles of chokepoints or bottlenecks, a constraint that has been this way since the line was first opened in 1876.
Two more such points of intersection exist, one each in Fresno and Stockton to the north where Union Pacific’s and BNSF’s lines cross. Only one railroad’s trains at a time are allowed through these interlocks. Same thing in San Bernardino but a grade separation project will carry BNSF trains either over or under UPs. This type of work is usually paid for by the affected railroads.
As it pertains to Fresno rail consolidation, efforts have been afoot since 1918 to combine the BNSF (Santa Fe before the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe merger of 1995) and UP (Southern Pacific prior to its inclusion into the Union Pacific in 1996) rights-of-way through town by placing the former’s trains onto the latter’s right-of-way, the purpose of which would be to remove BNSF’s mainline through town which basically cuts the city longitudinally in two currently. About $100 million has been allocated for the project from Measure C funds, a project projected to cost closer to $1 billion to accomplish. Measure C was Fresno County’s half-cent sales tax initiative that was passed by a healthy 77 percent of voters in November 2006. If not carried out in 15 years, the money will then be targeted to certain identified or to be identified grade separation projects where road meets railroad in town in order to keep the disparate modes separate in those locations which have or will be so designated for such improvements. This doesn’t mean rail consolidation in Fresno is out of the question, it just means Measure C monies allocated for this project will be directed toward the grade separation projects instead.
What multi-tracking, grade separations and consolidation even, if done correctly and thoughtfully, points to, is greater efficiencies and added capacity for the railroads operating in state whose lines and trains would be affected. This type of expediency and improvement cuts down on air pollution and gets people and goods to where they are going more quickly. For rail freight that is time-sensitive, that could make all the difference in the world between being on time and being late. For those traveling by train, any improvements in passenger rail service could mean more people taking advantage of this mode and perhaps would act as an interim measure and a viable method of travel until California High-Speed Rail is up and running. This would certainly free up highway and air space, providing a little if not a lot less encumbered road infrastructure for those that are to occupy it. For those driving less, this may even spell lower insurance premiums. All around, I’d say that’s a win-win-win proposition.
(Alan Kandel is a concerned California resident advocating for new, improved and expanded freight (and passenger) rail service. He is a retired railroad signalman previously employed by the Union Pacific Railroad in Fremont, Calif.)