Why Is Union Pacific Messing With California High Speed Rail?

Please keep in mind it is not my intent to take sides here but at the same time I feel it is important to present what I know to be the related facts as I understand them.

If rights-of-way are to be grade-separated in designated locations for both hsr and the freight railroad in question, then that no doubt would prove to be beneficial to both types of rail operations as neither would have to contend with intersecting street traffic at those designated grade-separated locations. This would presumably result in more efficient operations. This issue would obviously need to be addressed if not already done so.

Other questions I have are these. Is the freight rail service in question going to be hindered in any way? Will hsr effect in a positive way the in-question freight railroad's ability to move freight for their customers along the corridors in question? If hsr includes the movement of express freight, say during the overnight hours for instance, could this potentially take business away from the freight railroad in question?

As it pertains to hsr in the Central San Joaquin Valley counties of Fresno, Madera and Tulare, personally I would prefer to see the hsr enter these counties on its own designated right-of-way and incorporated into the proposed tri-county (Fresno, Madera, Tulare counties) Metro Rural Loop. This would obviate the need to utilize the Union Pacific right-of-way in question in this tri-county area. As it stands, there is a study currently underway to determine how the hsr and BNSF and UP mainlines through Fresno can be combined into a single corridor instead of having three independent corridors accomplish the same task. Combining all into the existing Union Pacific corridor is extremely involved and complicated and I, for one, question the logic of this proposal.

To try to paint a representative picture, the UP corridor from the Calwa (south Fresno) crossing of the BNSF to the San Joaquin River is essentially a double track affair - double track present between Calwa Crossing and CP (Control Point) Biola north. With the possible addition of BNSF added to the mix, additional track would need to be laid, presumably on the west side of the UP. (There has been an effort - for 90 years now - to get the BNSF - and the Santa Fe before that - to consolidate its Fresno-based mainline trains with those of the UP's on the latter's corridor through town. This would take BNSF and presumably Amtrak's "San Joaquin" trains off the existing BNSF mainline Fresno trackage which essentially splits Fresno longitudinally in two causing traffic tie-ups at the numerous affected crossings in town). Why the west side, because between UP San Joaquin Valley Division mileposts 200 and 202 resides the UP Fresno Yard, with the yard tracks being situated on the east side of the existing UP north and south mainlines through the yard. This arrangement would doubtless necessitate the building of two flyovers to carry BNSF and presumably Amtrak "San Joaquin" trains over (or under) the UP, not only on the north end of the proposed shared corridor in question, but at Calwa as a way to get the aforementioned trains back to the BNSF track in question. If convoluted is the appropriate word here, to my knowledge this would be a convoluted arrangement the likes of which has never existed in the U.S. before being that high-speed rail would also be added to the mix, that and keeping intersecting amd impacting motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic separated and isolated all at the same time.

On the other hand, if hsr rail is afforded its own designated right-of-way along the proposed Metro Rural Loop say for instance between Tulare County and Madera County, if situated along and adjacent to the proposed new extension of California Highway 65 between those two counties, right-of-way could be set aside not only for the highway, but for hsr and BNSF and a lightrail line as well. The extension of Highway 65 would lie east of the dowtown Fresno area and west of the Sierra Nevada foothills area. Granted new railroad and highway bridges would need to be constructed over the San Joaquin River, but doing so would seem much more plausible considering all would presumably be done concurrently or land would presumably be set aside for just such infrastructure, if not. Of course, all of this would be contingent on passing a stringent environmental review.

This may be a bit simplistic, but maybe that's the answer. Where altermative arrangements can be made so that rail rights-of-way would not require being shared, these should be identified. Where rail rights-of-way require being shared because there is absolutely no other alternative, every effort should be made to work through the particulars to the mutual satisfaction of all concerned. By providing the example of the alternative proposed Metro Rural Loop corridor arrangements, I have attempted to show that viable alternatives could exist.

With respect to grade-separated thoroughfares, in case there is any confusion, think the interstate highway system. Intersecting traffic is either carried over or under highway traffic via over- or undercrossings. With respect to flyovers, there is one that I know of that carries Metrolink commuter trains over freight rail trackage contained within BNSF's main yard in San Bernardino. It indeed makes for more efficient rail operations not only for Metrolink but also for BNSF and Amtrak as well.

One more thing to consider. When Interstate 5 was built is was allowed its own designated corridor, independent and separate from all other highways and railways. One would think the hsr system would have been afforded its own exclusive rail right-of-way, completely separate and isolated from and independent of any other. Remember it's high-speed rail with 200-plus mph train operation we're talking about here.

Commisar Cruickshank,

Answer this: Why after 10 Years and $60 Million spent taxpayer dollars did the High Speed Rail (HSR) authority ( a state entity) NOT-NOT get on board a primary component to HSR? That being the UP... And all a mere 5 months before putting a nearly $10 BILLION with a "B" bond issue my great grandkids will be paying off on next Novembers ballot?

All those on the pork-barrel HSR authority who got paid all those 10 years should be run out of the state...

If UP is concerned about one of their own trains derailing in the path of a 200 mph HSR train, the obvious solution is a tall crash barrier along narrow corridors strong enough to keep a freight from entering the HSR right of way or vice versa. Pricy, but cheaper than starting all over with a new ROW or tunnel. I had a friend who was waiting for an Orange Line subway train at Back Bay in Boston when an Amtrak train in the adjacent tunnel crashed at high speed in 1990. While she got quite a jump from the sound and vibration of the crash, I believe the walls dividing the tunnels kept the Amtrak train away from the subway tracks. According to the Boston Globe article found online the Amtrak did hit a commuter train and knocked down some columns holding up Dartmouth St, so UP may have a point if a crash barrier can't be made strong enough.

Post a comment