The Trains of Council Bluffs

[Willy2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johnwbaie

Once UP finishes upgrading its Mo Valley-Blair-Fremont line up north, more UP trains will bypass Council Bluffs, alleviating some of the rail crossing problems (a long range solution would be to double track the Blair line).

John B.

There is a lot of traffic on that line already. To accomodate even more trains they will eventually have to double track it. Either that or tell crews to just get used to delays. Rerouting trains will help Council Bluffs, but I think that a lot of the problems are coming from trains working the industries and doing switching work. They stop and go and sit for long periods of time causing major traffic delays on the streets in Council Bluffs.

[Anonymous]

Once UP finishes upgrading its Mo Valley-Blair-Fremont line up north, more UP trains will bypass Council Bluffs, alleviating some of the rail crossing problems (a long range solution would be to double track the Blair line). City officials should wait and see how the improved Blair line helps, before proposing billion dollar solutions. (BNSF already bypasses CB by running most of its trains via Plattsmouth NE to the south.)

John B.

[kenneo]

I don't disagree with these RR execs meathods or attitudes, I just want to state a "caution", and that is, if you respond to every unhappyness by a population or government, (such as crossings and where the RR was there first), when you may need to push back, past practice will lose you, not only the battle, but also the war.

There is nothing wrong with making it easier for the folks along the right-of-way, but it's "your railroad, not theirs", and believe me, if you attempted to pu***hem around on their property, well, the response won't be polite.

The whole thing, here, often becomes a real no-win situation. Even ugly.

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen: I don't disagree. I'm simply repeating what I was told by the Class I people we talk to in Chicago. Perhaps small cities have no legal talent, but I doubt that applies to Chicago.

Also, a correction on my previous post: the short lines are not asking for a $7 billion tax credit from the U.S. Government. It's not more than $2.5 billion, and they think it will actually top out at $1.75 billion. Well short of their expressed need of $7 billion.

" A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money" -- not said by the late Sen. Everett Dirksen.

[kenneo]

Doing property management research for POTB found several parcels that the railroad was sitting on that NO OWNER whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I quick like a jack rabbit filed quit-claim deeds in the railroads name.

Mark is correct in his statements about violated deed covenants should a court uphold them, but I really don't think that will ever happen because of probable Federal legal problems through the Interstate Commerace Act provisions.

[mudchicken]

Mark & Willy2:

Please remember, the railroad point of view and management has been a round a lot longer than the newly elected politician that will not learn from his/her predecessors mistakes. Railroads encourage a "good neighbor policy" with their employees which manifests itself in even the rule books. City ego tends to torpedo relationships with railroads every time there is an elected administration change. There is generally at least one large city in each state that has a reputation for idiotic, intrusive, outlandish behavior that railroads (and some State Public Utilities Regulatory agencies) can be sure of encountering. This idiot label costs the city in the end because funding gets diverted to other places that work with regulators and railroads to fix problems. Cities with this type of adversarial behavior include Santa Fe, NM; Lincoln, NE, Colorado Springs, CO, Oakland, CA and Austin, TX - From personal experience, I am aware of several Iowa small towns that have ego issues, but thought Council Bluffs wasn't there.

Mark: On occasion, there are ordinances and charters that have odd clauses to them that wind up in court, etc. - but for the most part towns and counties are clueless as to what is owned by the railroad and what color of title the railroad has. In addition, the joke assessor maps and GIS systems are wrong more often then they are right in identifying who owns what. If you think the railroad names you see on a USGS quad map are a bit old (CCC&StL ???), wait till you see what the assessors ans GIS clowns identify as a viable railroad owner......it's really sad. (This year, we FINALLY convinced the City & County of Denver that Rock Island is gone! Adjoining counties to the east and south continue to show Rock Island as the owner of record with LaSalle St / Chicago and Mills Bldg./ Topeka [now a battered women's shelter] as current addresses......)

As a roadmaster in LA, I was arrested on more than one occassion by a bunch of overzealous street sweeping dept. inspectors until my railroad cleaned-up a barrel of toxic who- knows-what dumped on our R/W by some of their fine, outstanding citizenry. We would complain about illegal dumping, LAPD would not enforce or proscecute when we caught the jerks red handed...The thinking was it's only a minor midemeanor - Tell that to the roadmaster who's budget gets hit $750,000 annually for trash cleanup! ((That' s a lot of spikes, ties, ballast and manhours not spent on trackwork!)

Undoing generations of ignorance is not a simple process!

Dirty Bird off the soapbox...

[Willy2]

"We were here first" is a typical argument and the railroads and the cities will have to come up with something a bit more complex to win the war. If the railroad says "We were here first" chances are the city will say "So, you were here first? How interesting." and totally dismiss it. The railroad would have to come up with a better argument, but that is where it gets hard. They would have to say something about how their support to industries across the nation, in the long run, is a good thing for America. But being Americans we want everything to happen right away so "in the long run" is not good enough. The railroads have a tough battle ahead of them but I think they can win it.

[Anonymous]

The "trains are a pain" issue in Council Bluffs is an issue that's arising in numerous locations. It's not going to go away. This last year I spent some time talking to two AVP-Government Affairs in Chicago, who represent two of the Class Is there, about this.

What they said, in brief, is that railroads can no longer afford to be unpopular, and that arguments of "we were here first, you second, so to hell with you" might win the battle, but it's guaranteed to lose the war. Here's what they said happens when a railroad ignores cities or treats people who live next to the track imperially:

1. When you want to get a zoning variance (EVERY railroad project needs a zoning variance, the city says no.
2. When you want to run more trains, the city says no. This is a case of using your argument "we were here first" against you. The trackside resident says, "Ah! I knew you ran six trains a day when I moved in. No problem! But now you want to run 10 trains a day? You've changed the pre-existing conditions. You've diminished my property value."
3. When a rail-served industry wants a zoning variance, the city says no.
4. When the railroad asks for federal money for a congestion-relief project, like Chicago or Kansas CIty, the city yawns--or fights it. The money goes elsewhere.
5. Instead of the city looking the other way about trash or debris on railroad property, it starts writing citations.
6. When the railroad complains about vandals, trespassers, thieves, etc., the city says, "You have your own police department. YOU handle it."

And lastly, the city starts poring through the land records, because chances are there are all sorts of fun little clauses in the patchwork of land that railroads sit on -- reversionary rights, conditional rights, etc., and the next thing the railroad knows, the city is sending it a letter saying that the railroad's use of some critical piece of land is conditional upon the railroad running two passenger trains every day each way, or something like that -- and the city is thinking it should exercise its contractual rights. Will they win? Who wants to find out?

No one I know at a railroad who is working with cities, states, and counties is trying to use the "we were here first" argument. They're not trying to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, they're trying to do what's best for the railroad.

There are a number of people in the business who have come to the conclusion that the very survival of the business will depend upon government money for infrastructure improvements and maintenance in the not-too-distant future. Right now, the short lines are asking for $7 billion (that's U.S. taxypayer dollars, which means $7 billion in cuts to services to U.S. taxpayers, or $7 billion in new taxes on U.S. taxpayers) to upgrade their track.

A request for a government handout, if made by a railroad that has a "we were here first" attitude -- no matter if that argument is true or not -- will have difficulty. I'm not saying railroads should or shouldn't have that attitude. I'm not a stockholder in any of them.

[ironhorseman]

[#offtopic] "The Trains of Council Bluffs," eh? Why do I keep thinking this topic title says "The Council of Train Buffs?" [%-)] Either my eyes are starting to go bad or maybe it's the eggnog. Or maybe I'm just sleepy [zzz] [?] Actually, a Council of Train Buffs doesn't sound like a bad idea now, doesn't it? [#offtopic]

[eolafan]

This thread kind of reminds me of the arguements of the folks who built their houses near O'Hare airport in Chicago when it was a small and lightly used "Orchard Field" (O'Hare's original name before WWII), and now complain about all the airplanes....IF YOU DON'T LIKE PLANES, DON'T BUILD YOUR HOME NEAR AN AIRPORT...IF YOU DON'T LIKE TRAINS, LIKEWISE DON'T BUILD OR LIVE NEAR A RAILROAD, IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Um, this is an entirely "un-enlightened" view point, but who was there first, the RR or the individuals who are doing the complaining? Of course, it was the RR. It seems to have become the American way to move in next-door to something that people may find to be a nuisance, then complain about it.

In my City, a group of people who live next to a RR yard went to the City Council to complain about the noise. The RR yard has been there since 1876. I'd certainly support anyone who lived there prior to it being built, but they'd be about 127 yrs old by now and probably have better things to do with their precious time.

[mudchicken]

Willy2: You just proved my point from earlier. Iowa's funky crossing statutes are less inclined to promote a safe solution to railroad crossings than any of it's surrounding states, including Huskerland. There is no imperative in Iowa to upgrade crossings. (Bad law, state assumes no responsibility or leadership)....Relies on wonky consensus based approach that is adversarial at best....

[Willy2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

One more problem that they are all griping and complaining about that could be solved more easily than hardly anyone can imagine.
The problem is that in one part of town kids going to school need to cross the tracks.
The solution: If the kids wouldn't act like a bunch of apes that escaped from the zoo they could get across more safely. If they would stop, look, and listen, like they are supposed too, everything would go smoothly. The problem could be solved that easily. But no, they think they have run across the tracks, and not listen or look for a train. It's too bad but I guess that's just the way it's going to be.

Another solution would be to build a pedestrian overpass. The kids could cross on the overpass and everything would fine. Either solution would work great. Will either of them happen? Maybe, maybe not.

Willie - happened here in Lincoln - a young boy going to school, got his leg caught under a wheel in west Lincoln - a teacher sitting in a car right there managed to pull him to safety.

The city and the railroad built the West A overpass - goes over all the tracks on the south side of the east end of the yard. (Amtrak goes through here in that area) Now the kids have no reason to be on the tracks in that area.

Mookie

[#ditto] Exactly. The boy probably, wasn't using good safety proceedures and got himself caught. I'm not saying that it is absolutely positive that he wasn't using safety proceedures but he probably wasn't.

Lincoln built the overpass and hopefully everything will go well. Council Bluffs will probably wait until there is an accident to take action. That seems to be the way it works.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

One more problem that they are all griping and complaining about that could be solved more easily than hardly anyone can imagine.
The problem is that in one part of town kids going to school need to cross the tracks.
The solution: If the kids wouldn't act like a bunch of apes that escaped from the zoo they could get across more safely. If they would stop, look, and listen, like they are supposed too, everything would go smoothly. The problem could be solved that easily. But no, they think they have run across the tracks, and not listen or look for a train. It's too bad but I guess that's just the way it's going to be.

Another solution would be to build a pedestrian overpass. The kids could cross on the overpass and everything would fine. Either solution would work great. Will either of them happen? Maybe, maybe not.

Willie - happened here in Lincoln - a young boy going to school, got his leg caught under a wheel in west Lincoln - a teacher sitting in a car right there managed to pull him to safety.

The city and the railroad built the West A overpass - goes over all the tracks on the south side of the east end of the yard. (Amtrak goes through here in that area) Now the kids have no reason to be on the tracks in that area.

Mookie

[Willy2]

One more problem that they are all griping and complaining about that could be solved more easily than hardly anyone can imagine.
The problem is that in one part of town kids going to school need to cross the tracks.
The solution: If the kids wouldn't act like a bunch of apes that escaped from the zoo they could get across more safely. If they would stop, look, and listen, like they are supposed too, everything would go smoothly. The problem could be solved that easily. But no, they think they have run across the tracks, and not listen or look for a train. It's too bad but I guess that's just the way it's going to be.

Another solution would be to build a pedestrian overpass. The kids could cross on the overpass and everything would fine. Either solution would work great. Will either of them happen? Maybe, maybe not.

[dekemd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

One person even said that "Council Bluffs is the only city I know of, that was built in the middle of the tracks.

That one sentence says it all. Most towns WERE built around the railroad when they were started. It's just the smart towns figured out that they might want to put the residential section away from the tracks. Personally, if I was in charge of the railroad and people kept raising a big stink about it, I would tell them "No were not moving our tracks. We were here first. YOU move your town." It would probably be a public relations disaster, but it would be fun.

Derrick

[Anonymous]

Whoever commented that Council Bluffs was the only city built in the middle of the tracks was wise to add the caveat "that I know of." Apparently, that person hasn't been to Chicago or about 100 other cities I can think of that are similarly situated.

All things considered, it would probably be less expensive to move the portions of Council Bluffs that conflict with the railroads, than to move the railroads. Since any meaningful solution probably starts at $1 billion, it's difficult to see any changes in the near future.

In the meantime, the Bluffs remain a wonderful place to watch trains. The last time I was there, in the space of an afternoon I saw more than two dozen trains from four railroads , all in a 10 block radius, and every bit of it from public property.

[mudchicken]

Willy2:

Council Bluffs is what happens when your town is built in a river flood plain and growth through the years is predicated on heavy industry that needs train service. While CB has been the stepchild of Omaha for all these years, it is directly responsible for much of Omaha's growth. Railroad industry consolidation has helped matters somewhat, or Council Bluffs would be in much worse condition. (Gone are CNW,CRIP,WAB, MP,MILW and many of the smaller yards and lead tracks.....Although the power plant on the southeast side of town near I-80 & CBRY did add some railroad .
Along with its river plain location, Council Bluff's historic lack of planning and Iowa's wonky statutes dealing rail/highway crossings have left the town in the mess that its in. Any consolidation of the rail corridors in town is going to be a bear and displace many homes and businesses to accomodate. From my own experience, I know CBRY(OmniTrax), BNSF and UP are working together to try to consolidate things and that city and state officials are in the mix. Money, especially now, is in short supplyGetting everybody on the same page has been tough, especially city & state officials who cannot grasp the operating , physical and regulatory hoops that railroads have to jump through.

From a railfan's point of view, catch operations as you can now, especially the shortline remnants (CBRY, IAIS, CBF et al) because it will eventually be just a memory.

Mudchicken

[Willy2]

In a recent newspaper article there was a big story about trains in the city of Council Bluffs Iowa. Council Bluffs is right across the stateline from Nebraska. In the article everyone was complaining and going on about how long they have to wait at the numerous grade crossings that are in the city. The article said that there a couple hundred crossings, which I think is overestimated a bit. One person even said that "Council Bluffs is the only city I know of, that was built in the middle of the tracks. Most other cities have the tracks on the outskirts of town." Apparently waits at crossings are ranging from 5 minutes to 1 hour. Another problem is that many of the tracks pass right through neighborhoods and many people who are trying to get their sleep are not happy. The solution to fixing that part of the problem would be to rip out miles of tracks which would be moneywasting and very time consuming, not to mention a huge hassle for the railroads. The town and railroads have pondered over the problem for years. Now, I will admit that there are tracks everywhere you go. Still people really shouldn't be so worked up about it.

A couple of options to fix the problems: Build more viaducts over the tracks. The 2 current viaducts are not enough.

The second more money wasting solution would be to rip out the tracks that go through the center of town and somehow reroute trains around town. Doing that would be a huge problem for the Union Pacific as they have a yard in the center of town. This hairbrained solution was actually put in the paper!

I think that a couple more viaducts and a bit more willingness to wait at the crossings is the easiest solution.

Now that I am done rattling on about it I'd like to hear what all of you think about this. What do you think the solution to the problem is? Do you have any other solutions. Basically, what are your opinions? This is my [2c] on the problem, now I'd like to hear your [2c].

I hope that I didn't get too tedious and wound up about this. If I did, I apologize.