Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Eric and any legitimate interested parties: Remember, this is all speculative "what if" stuff, although there's probably enough of a congestion problem developing in Spokane and through the "Funnel" between Spokane and Sandpoint to look at possible solutions. And yes, the BNSF through downtown Spokane does represent a certain ambience of a nuisance. That being said, what I would like to do is compare the recent UP trench project through Reno Nevada with any prospective Spokane realignments. If I remember correctly, what UP did there was take grade level tracks and stuck them in a trench, so there was no need to purchase additional property for this project. UP simply built a few shoo flys around the project until it was finished. There was no need to buy new ROW through high priced commercial properties. With the Spokane situation, it's not as easy (if indeed the UP Reno trench can be called "easy"). The BNSF tracks run via a viaduct with commercial buildings on both sides, so there is no room for simply adding additional tracks on the right or left side of the ROW. Also, the bridges over the city streets are constricted for vehicle traffic, with some clearances as low as 12', and support struts right in the middle of streets. I'm sure the city engineers would prefer at least 15' clearances on all city streets not to mention unobstructed street widths. In other words, there would be no tears shed by city officials if the old NP viaduct was eliminated. Now, consider the costs of the Reno trench. Isn't it possible that compared to building a trench or raised viaduct through Spokane, the idea of a de facto tunnel under solid bedrock, out of sight and out of mind for most city residents, might actually be the prefered option, and may even be the less costly solution? The tunnel idea would not require any additional property purchases, since it can start right at railroad ROW near Hamilton Street and end at undeveloped city property on the west end. From there, a crossing of Latah Creek similar to BNSF's Latah Creek Bridge near the Interstate would connect the west portal to either the old UP/Milwaukee grade ( which is mostly preserved as a future rail trail), or to the old NP and current BNSF eastbound tracks. In addition, the tunnel would knock a few miles off the total track mileage for Pasco/Hinkle bound traffic. Now, would this be all UP, or UP and BNSF, and/or a railroad and city/state combined project? Remember, BNSF has all but convinced the State of Washington to aid in paying for a potential clearance project at Stampede Pass tunnel, so why not a Spokane rail project? If this was a joint BNSF/UP project, there would need to be additional study of connecting this new alignment with the ex-GN line near Indian Canyon bridge. Not too hard a problem since the ex-SP&S line can be converted to a new Seattle bound line. As for the "hitch" I described, it may not be as simple as it seems for UP to rebuild the old ROW into Spokane proper. BNSF now has a crossover between the ex-NP line and the ex-SP&S line that wiped out the old UP grade that ran between those lines. Thus, UP would need to either elevate their tracks over the BNSF crossover, which would require a massive amount of fill on the east side of the crossover for a few miles, or an underpass under the crossover, which might not be feasable as it may approach the flood level of the little lake east of the crossover and also increase the westbound ruling grade for a half mile or so by 1%. As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE?
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