Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
LETS DEBATE OPEN ACCESS
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by VerMontanan</i> <br /><br /> <br />In case you haven't seen this, and you're interested in something that really might someday happen (or at least has merit as a catalyst for it happening), check out the Washington DOT report on rail capacity at: <br /> <br />www.washingtonports.org <br /> <br />When you get to the home page, then click on "Trade", and then click on "2004 WPPA Rail Capacity Study". <br /> <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Interesting, but with obvious omissions that would indicate heavy Class I involvement in the analysis: <br /> <br />1. The study mentions the Lind-Ellensburg rebuild, but no mention of the 2.2% grades, or the possibility of UP/CP intermodals using this route if it extends to Marengo and the "quid pro quo" is aleviated with BNSF. <br /> <br />2. Even more glaring, there is no mention of rebuilding the Milwaukee corridor Easton to Cedar River Valley/Ravensdale (perhaps so as to not embarass BN brass who mucked up that opportunity) <br /> <br />3. There is no mention of rail to barge transload at Pasco and vicinity for cargos to/from the Lower Columbia ports. As has been pointed out, capacity on the river is widely available, while rail capacity through the Gorge is constrained. <br /> <br />Also, the authors do mention having UP run over Stampede: <br /> <br />"A scenario we investigated concerned the movement of UP priority intermodal traffic between <br />Puget Sound and Hinkle OR via the Stampede Pass, Kennewick, Wallula and Hinkle. We <br />believe this scenario can only be accomplished if an entity other than BNSF #8220;owns#8221; the control <br />of the Stampede Pass Route. We do not believe BNSF would be agreeable to allowing UP <br />access to the route unless significant #8220;quid pro quos#8221; were available." <br /> <br />Seems to me this absolutely begs the question of open access on that corridor. Also, isn't this the scenario for which I was lambasted by the BNSF Kool-Aid drinkers? <br /> <br />Since this study is focused on the State of Washington and not the Northern Tier Corridor, one can question why it is okay for BNSF to have three lines from the Coast to Spokane, and two lines branching out into 5 lines east of Sandpoint ID, but between these two regions all rail traffic must absolutely go via the "Funnel". <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy