Will Western Railroads Now Nuke the State of California?

[K. P. Harrier]

For the last few years BNSF and UP, in conjunction with the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), etc., have been working toward a grade separation between BNSF and UP estimated to cost nearly $200 million. California voters even approved bond money for the project. Now, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has rule against the project. -- See TRAINS Newswire, March 26, 2010.

---------------

The crossing. BNSF's Transcon is the cross tracks, with Chicago to the left. UP's Sunset Route is the near-far alignment, with El Paso away from the camera.

---------------

Because of agreements between BNSF and UP related to the future grade separation, the railroads changed their financial arrangements related to the crossing. That will not easily be reversed. It would appear the CTC has opened itself up to financial liability in denying the costly grade separation. It would seem they should have done that several years ago, and not after everything was in place.

---------------

UP took over maintenance on the crossing, and soon installed new diamonds with heavy cranes. The view above is an hour or two after four new diamonds were dropped into place in a great blitz. This and the first photo above originally were posted several months ago in the "Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates" thread.

---------------

In response, will the railroads now nuke the State of California in the courts to either get their way or recover monetary damages?

The next few weeks should prove to be legally very interesting for the Colton Crossing effort as various interests quickly joky for position.

 

[blownout cylinder]

Be interesting to see what develops here. Odd.

[jeaton]

KP

The issue seems to be that there is insufficient "public benefit" to justify the California expenditure on the project.  Not being that familiar with the area, are trains stopped by traffic at the crossing blocking any street crossings?  What about delays to commuter and California regional passenger trains? 

It sure seems to be a very late date in the planning process to just discover that there won't be enough public benefit to justify state money.  That element of the planning process for determining public benefit is fairly well established and widely used on rail projects all over the country. 

[tree68]

jeaton

It sure seems to be a very late date in the planning process to just discover that there won't be enough public benefit to justify state money. 

Methinks it's probably more closely related to state budget issues than anything else.  That there is not enough public benefit is just the mechanism by which they cut the funding.

[Avianwatcher]

I think this may be more than budget.......we have so many "tree huggers" in control here in CA that are hostile to rail traffic and this just may be another back door attack.

[vsmith]

I really doubt its treehuggers, I think were seeing a increasing Spend-Nothing-on-Anything-Anywhere attitude rearing its ugly head as the budget still festers. I expect to hear about state funding cuts to the HST and to local Metrorail projects here in SoCal sometime soon as Sacramento tries to sit on what little coin they still have.

[diningcar]

Maybe this is a "little motivation" ploy for the RR's (say UP) to be more cooperative regarding HSR.

[mudchicken]

Well, at least some railroad welders will retain guaranteed employment. This is where the BNSF (ATSF) and UP (SP) double main track Transcons cross going into and out of LA.

Any flyover will require Caltrans to be involved because they stupidly had to parallel SP so closely when they built the 10 freeway to appease the Nimbys that are now on the rail transit bandwagon.

Colton crossing was my introduction into railroading in Southern California. Have multiple memories (nightmares) of these diamonds....Lost my welders off my territory  to this place multiple times because SP (Who was responsible for 3 of the 4 diamonds) was to broke and too cheap to fix broken out frog inserts and the Santa Fe welders assigned here were always swamped or up on the hill. When they (SP) did maintain the things, their workmanship was shoddy at best (like cutting up spikes and welding them into the broken out / chipped out inserts) ....The local water table (Santa Ana River and Lytle Creek nearby )around here was only a few feet down, so a flyover almost certainly required you to go UP.... 

If you put a 10 MPH slow order on the Santa Fe side to cover the crossing frog as it broke-up, the Colton PD and the locals would come unglued over C-Street nearby being blocked to the north.

DC: You are being too kind...I suspect the political spin doctors and local yellow press have already have a plan festering to make the railroad look like the bad guys.

[edbenton]

Considering the OTR Industry as a WHOLE wants to NUKE [edited] FORNIA as we now call it  They are making the AG boys mad for cutting off water to the Central Valley were 80% of all the VEGGIES for the USA come from.  Now they are going to make the RR's mad boy who is left the Longshoremen when they run the Containerships out of there when they Mandate ULSD for the ships to dock there in 2015 another CARB RULE.  Boy should be fun to watch [edited[ fornia come apart at the seams in a couple more years shouldn't it.

[edited by selector]

[ChuckCobleigh]

I dunno. I smell the old California bond-issue bait-and-switch ruse, a favorite with state and local entities. Get a tax/bond passed to build some very desirable projects, then three or four years later, orchestrate a "grass roots" (and here we know what kind of "grass" that is) opposition so the funds can be diverted to "vote for me" projects completely different from what was used to sell the tax/bond.

That's why I have become one of the perpetual "aginners" when these things come up for a vote out here.

Unfortunately, most folks have neither memory or clue about these things so they occasionally get away with one. With any luck, though, the abysmal state of our government finances and just downright criminal schemes may finally get through to the body politic. Well, with a lot of luck I should have said.

I'll try to get off the soap box now without doing myself a mischief.

[Lyon_Wonder]

When I first read the title of this post my first thought was that BNSF and UP had WMDs:)  Well, maybe WMDs as in Wheels of Mass Distribution with their large fleets of 6-axle EMD and GE locos.

[Boyd]

 $200,000,000.00 for a flyover? As in one RR having a bridge over another RR? Having not seen this area I'm thinking someone added in some zeros after having a few too more to drink.

[desertdog]

Over the years, the State of California has developed an anti-business reputation and deservedly so.  Regulations, taxation, wage and hour requirements and arbitrary environmental standards have forced companies to move out of state and take their jobs with them.  In the Colton Crossing situation, BNSF and UP aren't able to pick up and go anywhere, but nevertheless, the decision of the CTC will have its long term consequences, none of which will be good for the people of California.

If there ever was an example of a"shovel-ready" project, it looks to me like this was it.  The citizens saw its value and voted for of it. It had been largely engineered and was partially funded.  I do not know for sure, but suspect that the environmental impact study had long since been approved.

But because "big business" is involved and will derive benefit, Sacramento has to shoot it down.  Never mind the jobs created by the construction, ignore the long-term economic efficiencies, forget about the air quality benefits, "big business" needs to be put it its place by the bureaucracy.

 It's one more bad message that California does not need to send to the rest of the world.

 

John Timm

 

 

 

 

 

[dhanson1961]

Just to add to the speculation. This paragraph is a quote for the article from the Press-Enterprise.

One of the things local leaders would like to see is more access to tracks owned by the railroads for Metrolink commuter trains, said Aaron Hake, legislative director for the Riverside County Transportation Commission.

Maybe this is a ploy for the Metrolink people?

 

[greyhounds]

jeaton

KP

The issue seems to be that there is insufficient "public benefit" to justify the California expenditure on the project.  Not being that familiar with the area, are trains stopped by traffic at the crossing blocking any street crossings?  What about delays to commuter and California regional passenger trains? 

It sure seems to be a very late date in the planning process to just discover that there won't be enough public benefit to justify state money.  That element of the planning process for determining public benefit is fairly well established and widely used on rail projects all over the country. 

Jay,

Do you have a link to those established elements of the planning process that determine public benefits?   They'd make some interesting reading.  It does seem strange that the project had the benefits before, but now it doesn't have the benefits.

FYI, in November 2008 California voters approved a referendum that will shut down commercial egg production in the state by 2015.  California consumes around 12 billion eggs per year and half are/were produced within the state.  The rest are/were transported in from other states.  (That would be about 0.89 eggs per person per day.)

Oh well, it's an ill wind that blows no one some good.  If Californians don't drastically reduce their egg consumption there will be more long haul transportation opportunities.  How many loads will 6 billion eggs from Iowa/Arkansas wherever make?

[rvos1979]

I know of quite a few truckers and trucking companies that are pulling out of CA because of increased regulations, I.e. requiring side skirts on all trailers, all transport refrigeration units must be registered, all APUs must have particulate filters, etc.  Not to sound mean, but hope the people of CA will not complain when their store shelves are empty, because nobody wants to run to CA......

[BNSFwatcher]

Having lived, with my parents, on their "Chicken Ranch" in Petaluma, CA ("The World's Egg Basket"), along with thousands of White Leghorn layers (we were egg producers, only), I find this news astounding.  Where does California get these "loons" that vote for such silliness?  Sorry, I shouldn't have to ask.  I have already advised a friend in Washington State to increase his production.  I guess Petaluma has been "Yuppified" and chickens are persona (avis?) non grata.  We sold our chicken manure to the lettuce producers of the Salinas valley, the preferred fertilizer.  "Organic Loons", take note.  Soon, California will become a net-importer of chicken s***.  That might be a good thing!  I have had enough of their exports!!!   No, this won't help the comeback of the NWP or the P&SR.

Hays

[CNW 6000]

rvos1979

 Not to sound mean, but hope the people of CA will not complain when their store shelves are empty, because nobody wants to run to CA......

Hoist on their own petard...I won't shed a tear. 

Shame that state acts the way it does.

[CNW 6000]

greyhounds

Oh well, it's an ill wind that blows no one some good.  If Californians don't drastically reduce their egg consumption there will be more long haul transportation opportunities.  How many loads will 6 billion eggs from Iowa/Arkansas wherever make?

Perfect timing on that new refrigerated 53' container (another thread on here).

[samfp1943]

"...For the last few years BNSF and UP, in conjunction with the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), etc., have been working toward a grade separation between BNSF and UP estimated to cost nearly $200 million. California voters even approved bond money for the project. Now, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has rule against the project. -- See TRAINS Newswire, March 26, 2010...

...Because of agreements between BNSF and UP related to the future grade separation, the railroads changed their financial arrangements related to the crossing. That will not easily be reversed. It would appear the CTC has opened itself up to financial liability in denying the costly grade separation. It would seem they should have done that several years ago, and not after everything was in place..."

It seems like we have all moved into a Lewis Carrol world (Alice in Wonderland). Who does a political entity (SANBAG) and CALTRANS expect to have any credibility when dealing in or with the Business Community? The way I read this it was pretty much a done deal, approvals given, and taxes had been approved, and voted favorably upon.  Everything was set to proceed, and then a State agebcy CTC (Calif. Transportation Comission) rules AGAINST it. 

What is the next step? Does the whole process start over again?  Has the Tax monies/Bond issue proceeds been spent in other areas (reprioritized by the CTC)?

  I woud think the community entities involved who are ajacent to, and effected by the traffic problems caused by the existing railroad trackage issues, would be having a political meltdown, or it it just that one political entity playing hardball with another political entity?   

I wish one of the California based members could enlighten all of us here as to their thoughts on this situation.

Thanks!

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

No one has yet commented on how close the acronym for the local governments - ''SANBAG'' - is to the word that perhaps best describes what seems to have happened to the railroads here - ''sandbag[ged]''. 

In these situations I often think it best to go get the information right ''from the horse's mouth'' - or perhaps it's the other end, instead - you can decide for yourself.    Acordingly, below I have posted an excerpt from pages 2 - 4 of the staff Memo dated March 17, 2010 recommending that the CATC not approve the ''Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) – Project Baseline Agreement''.  However, I have no idea which of these reasons - if any of them - were the 'real reasons' for the reported rejection of the project.  [Someone once said, ''There are 2 reasons for doing something - a 'good reason', and then there's the 'real reason'.'']

The ''Project Baseline Agreement'' itself - consisting of 47 pages, approx. 7 MB in size - is at: http://www.catc.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/2010agenda/10MAR/Colton_Crossing_PBA.pdf 

Finally, I am compelled to point out that the late John G. Kneiling, longtime Trains columnist as the Professional Iconoclast and other articles, often liked to point out that the only time he and his colleagues had arrangements that were not honored was when dealing with governments.  It appears that this is of like kind, and that he would not be surprised at this turn of events.

- Paul North.

Excerpt from http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/TCIF/032510_TCIF_PBA_BookItem_Colton_Crossing.pdf [4 pages, approx. 22 KB in size]:

 ''STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

In accordance with the TCIF Guidelines and Resolution TCIF-P-0708-01, Commission staff reviewed the Project Baseline Agreement submitted by the Department on March 16, 2010 for TCIF Project 79: Colton Crossing Project.  Based on this review, Commission documented the following deficiencies with the Project Baseline Agreement:

• The PPR contains errors and inaccuracies.  The amounts by fund and fiscal year do not match the amounts in the project summary section.  There is also a computation error in the Right of Way capital costs, which results in an error in the total project cost of approximately $4 million.  In addition, the funding commitments of the railroads are shown as a lump sum amount.  The PPR should document the funding commitment of each railroad (UP and BNSF).

• The PSR does not include an evaluation of the various alternatives including estimated cost, does not clearly identify the preferred alternative, and does not explain the basis for the selection of the preferred alternative.  The preferred alternative appears to include significant benefit to BNSF beyond the basic grade separation for the existing two tracks.  The proposed flyover will be designed and built to accommodate a third track in the future.  The PSR does not evaluate the potential cost impact of a flyover designed to accommodate three tracks as opposed to two tracks nor does it evaluate how this private betterment benefits the public investment in the project.

• The MOU does not stipulate the public benefits of the project, most notably the passenger rail benefits.  In addition, the MOU appears to indicate that any additional capacity generated as a result of the project will be reserved for UP and BNSF.

• The final note in Exhibit C, “Estimated Project Schedule and Proposed Funding Plan Summary,” of the MOU, states that if the Southern California Railroad Authority (SCRRA) wants to commence the operation of additional passenger trains on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, SCRRA or its member agencies will be required to pay for 84.6% of BNSF’s costs related to the Colton Crossing Project.

• Exhibit F, “Description of Projected Public Benefits,” of the MOU does not include the current conditions for safety, congestion reduction, and emissions reduction, which are required to establish the baseline to measure project benefits.

• Section F-2 of Exhibit F, “Description of Projected Public Benefits,” of the MOU states “the completion of this project may provide opportunities for potential future services along the Union Pacific network trackage (subject to other capacity improvements).  Such future services are subject to requirements in any applicable agreements or future negotiations between Union Pacific and the interested service parties.”  This section appears to reiterate that no additional public passenger rail capacity benefits are provided as a result of the public investment in this project.

• Exhibit G, “Description of Supplemental Funding Plan,” of the MOU states “the railroads may seek reimbursement from sources other than TCIF or other funding for all or part of the Project costs required to be paid by the railroads.  Such reimbursement or other funding could include, without limitation, contractual contribution from the owner/joint freight operator of the corridor, a tenant passenger or commuter operator, or state or federal non-TCIF grants.”  This section appears to allow the railroads to charge public passenger or commuter rail agencies for the costs related to the Colton Crossing Project.  Given the potential public investment in this project and the substantial private benefits to UP and BNSF that this project will provide, it appears counterintuitive that the railroads would be allowed to recover their investment in the project from other public agencies.

Commission staff also reviewed whether the Project Baseline Agreement for TCIF Project 79: Colton Crossing Project met the requirements for submittal under AB 268 (Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008).  AB 268 requires the Commission to determine whether the Colton Crossing Project meets the requirements or delivery schedule contained in its Project Baseline agreement when reviewed by the commission no later than March 2010.  As the executed Project Baseline Agreement was not submitted or approved by the Commission prior to the March 2010 review by the Commission, Commission staff has determined that the project is not in compliance with the requirements of AB 268.  This determination takes into account the fact that the Legislature, when passing AB 268, made reference to Commission policies and requirements as outlined in the Program’s guidelines and adopting resolutions.  Staff considers that the March 2010 review described in AB 268 is intended to be made against the project baseline agreement that would have been in place by September 2008, as required in the Program’s adopting resolution.''

[blue streak 1]

Paul_D_North_Jr

The PSR does not include an evaluation of the various alternatives including estimated cost, does not clearly identify the preferred alternative, and does not explain the basis for the selection of the preferred alternative.  The preferred alternative appears to include significant benefit to BNSF beyond the basic grade separation for the existing two tracks.  The proposed flyover will be designed and built to accommodate a third track in the future.  The PSR does not evaluate the potential cost impact of a flyover designed to accommodate three tracks as opposed to two tracks nor does it evaluate how this private betterment benefits the public investment in the project.

Paul:  Were you able to tell if UP would also be able to build a third and/or 4th track under the flyover? Maybe KP could enlighten us. the statement seems to ignore that UP and BNSF are putting a lot of money in this project.

 

[Boyd]

When I get my manufacturing business up and running I'm strongly considering not selling any of my engine powered items or possibly any of my products to anyone in California because of all the baloney I would have to deal with. If I did sell engine powered machines there they would have to have special engines on them to be legal.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

That statement by the CATC staff is a little misleading.  It's the UP that is supposed to go over the bridge with 2 tracks and a maintenance road.  (Nothing is said at all about the possibility of converting that road into a 3rd track at some point in the future, but . . .   )  It will be the BNSF that stays on the ground, and the opening in the bridge will accomodate a future 3rd track.  If ''What's sauce for the goose is suace for the gander, too !'' here, that would be another reason to anticipate that UP could also install a 3rd track if it wanted.

The summaries are on pages 17, 18, and 34 of 47 of the 'PDF' version that I linked above = pages 8 and 9 of Section 7 - Cost Estimates/ Funding of the Project Study Report - Attachment B, and Exhibit B - Preliminary Description of the Project, respectively. 

- Paul North. 

[blownout cylinder]

Paul_D_North_Jr

No one has yet commented on how close the acronym for the local governments - ''SANBAG'' - is to the word that perhaps best describes what seems to have happened to the railroads here - ''sandbag[ged]''. 

That is about as bad as my comment I made sometime ago about one certain fellow----"Bernard Mad(e)off----my emph. Madoff was the original---I just added the extra vowel----

Paul_D_North_Jr

The PPR contains errors and inaccuracies.  The amounts by fund and fiscal year do not match the amounts in the project summary section.  There is also a computation error in the Right of Way capital costs, which results in an error in the total project cost of approximately $4 million.  In addition, the funding commitments of the railroads are shown as a lump sum amount.  The PPR should document the funding commitment of each railroad (UP and BNSF).

Interesting tidbit here----seems like they are being rather "hard nosed" about the cost of this project and how it breaks down---then there is the small matter of their own pet projects

Paul_D_North_Jr

Section F-2 of Exhibit F, “Description of Projected Public Benefits,” of the MOU states “the completion of this project may provide opportunities for potential future services along the Union Pacific network trackage (subject to other capacity improvements).  Such future services are subject to requirements in any applicable agreements or future negotiations between Union Pacific and the interested service parties.”  This section appears to reiterate that no additional public passenger rail capacity benefits are provided as a result of the public investment in this project.

Yep. Gotta push passenger rail everywhere------or are they? Brings up in this little one's mind a question of who actually "owns" those ROWs. Then again---

 

[K. P. Harrier]

A Political Irony

The below Colton, CA photo looks southward (railroad west) on BNSF's Transcon. The cross tracks are Union Pacific's Sunset Route, with Arizona to the left and Los Angeles to the right.  The railroads want to build a flyover here.

The "flyover" drama currently has an irony. If the Colton flyover stays rejected as the California Transportation Commission has ruled, a Southern California freeway widening project will have to fund a $10 million railroad bridge replacement. View looks south.

The above bridge is the nearest of the two bridges in the below side view.

If the flyover is CTC approved, according to the Press-Enterprise newspaper in Riverside, CA, Union Pacific is agreeable to serving the branch's customer from a back way, thus, eliminating the need for a replacement bridge, and saving the state $10 million.

The second bridge in the photo background above belongs to the BNSF Railway, and UP has trackage rights over that bridge for its mainline trains

The above photo shows that BNSF two-track bridge in the center background. View looks north (railroad east).

Little press coverage of the matter is available, but things should become publicly known within the next two weeks.

Some see politics as people with motive jockeying for position. The drama of that is sure evident in this case as the parties involved are all scrambling for a better position, to either get or be saved from spending big money!

 

[MP173]

I am glad to be a Hoosier these days.  California's state budget seems to be a mess.  We are beginning to run deficits, but My Man Mitch has a pretty good control on things. 

A couple of things...from afar:

1.  Are they pulling the plug on this in response to all the budget issues including dramatic increases in college costs and pension costs?

2.  The central valley area seems to be getting more water for agricultural use.  This was agreed to days ahead of the final vote for the Health Care bill.  There seems to have been two California members of the House of Representatives that were sitting on the fence.  They got water for their constituients, we got a new bill.

3.  Offshore drilling of oil would solve considerable amounts of their financial concerns.  The royalties would be as prestine as the beaches.

ed

[caldreamer]

I am wondering, can the CTC LEGALLY override a referrendum approved by the people??  If I was BNSF and UP I would build it and let the CTC sue me and have courts tell me that I can't.

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Update as of April 8, 2010:

The Riverside (CA) Press-Enterprise is reporting (at 11:20 A.M.) that word has been received by local officials and the railroads from Federal officials that the Colton Flyover project has a four week reprieve before economic stimulus funds are lost.

Also, in negotiations, BNSF and UP had agreed to a state share reduction from $97.3 million to $91 million.

Everyone seems to be negotiating in good faith, though sometimes in a crisis spirit. Thus, any nuking is unlikely. This will likely end the question originally posed in title by this thread. Further updates, if warranted, by the originator of this thread will be in the "Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates" topic, the link (at this posting date and time) of which is below:

http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/120779.aspx?PageIndex=51

For those following that thread, some significant but subtle things in the Colton area are taking place, which unfortunately, are subject to interpretation. Also, a close by flyover will be examined. It is hoped those items can be posted about within a week.

Take care everyone.

K.P.

[karldotcom]

Someone asked what commuter service was affected....there is no commuter service on these lines.

The Sunset Limited and Southwest Chief travel though this diamond....which doesnt mean jack because the state doesnt contribute to long distance trains.

There was a good war when this crossing was installed by the California Southern in the middle of the night, with SP parking trains across the diamonds and hiring armed agents (Virgil Earp) to prevent operation.