Update, 10/22/08
OK, I admit that the framing of my question was very local-centric without considering the full path of a freight trip.
But a reader passed along an interesting article that suggests that this can still be successfully managed in a sleepy little rail town called Chicago.
Original Post, 10/20/08:
Jim Young, chair of Union Pacific, was interviewed in a “Q&A” in Sunday’s Oregonian (if it’s online, I haven’t found it).
Here’s an interesting exchange on Commuter Rail:
Q: Do you see Union Pacific getting into the business of passenger rail with the new emphasis on mass transit?
A: There’s an infrastructure challenge on the highways. We are approached by city leaders who want to put commuter rail on the freight rail. That’s a complete mistake. The last thing we want to do is take freight off to make room for commuters. That freight just ends up on the highway.
For example, a load of lumber moving out of the Pacific Northwest displaces two to three trucks. Capacity is so tight, it wouldn’t be a good thing for the environment or the country. I can understand the community’s perspective. But what I have to protect is the freight business.
Is that the right way to look at the trade-off? If a freight car load of timber displaces 3 trucks, would a passenger car displace more than 3 trucks’ worth of cars? Assuming 3 cars = 1 truck for highway space, as long as a passenger rail car has more than nine passengers on it, isn’t that a win?
And wouldn’t the freight be more likely to be able to shift out of the AM and PM peak (if on trucks) than the commuters would be?
How many cars to do we have to remove to cancel the negative environmental impacts of the added trucks?
Seems like the tradeoff is a little more complex than Mr. Young paints it?
Of course, we could always invest in more rail, rather than more asphalt…
25 responses to “Updated: Rail/Road Math”
I think his last sentence is the most telling: “But what I have to protect is the freight business.” He clearly believes there is more money to be made shipping lumber than bodies.
You aren’t talking 1 railcar of passengers vs one of wood, you are talking a train of them. An additional car on the train is no big deal, (assuming you stay below the siding length limits,) the problem is number of trains. I don’t know how long the wood freight trains are, but it could easily be 100 cars. So that is 300 semi-trucks. To free up that much room on the freeway, (yes, they probably don’t want to travel at rush hour in the first place,) would require getting 900 passenger cars off the road, or 900 people on the train. (To put that into perspective, that is 3 fullish MAX trains, so about 10 minutes load out of downtown to Beaverton at rush hour…)
So, on the right corridors, that totally makes sense, but, for instance, WES isn’t close to that good of a corridor…
But there is something else to think of: much of the stuff that is shipped via rail in the US is shipped by barges in Europe, which frees up room on the tracks for passengers and priority freight. So the question is, where is that wood going? And would shipping it via the Panama Canal be a better solution?
Ok, most of the wood goes to mid country. It can’t go by ship. The other large commodity shipped over rail is coal.
The fact is, freight SHOULD NOT BE SHIFTED FROM RAILS TO ROAD at all cost. If that means having more cars on the road then so be it. You’d literally have to run an absurd amount of commuter rail (think Chicago or New York) to make it worth shifting freight somewhere else.
Another thing to think of, is economically the freight more than pays for itself, commuter rail DOES NOT PAY FOR ITSELF.
If we want commuter rail, we need to build custom rail systems that either add tracks to the freight system or bring in new ROW for the tracks. The idea of displacing, or even obstructing freight rail is really absurd, environmentally and economically. It’s bad for the environment, for the customers (you and me), and it is bad for our pocket books.
WES will be ok because it won’t disrupt freight rail in a negligible way. The UP lines are PACKED with freight trains, literally the equivalent of thousands upon thousands of trucks that won’t be on the road.
In all seriousness, new rail for commuter trains, quit piggy backing on top of a sustainable system that doesn’t rip us for our tax monies. We need to think about NOT stealing an entities hard fought and hard built assets for once.
There’s also the issue of headway. You have to wait for trains. It’s often quite long for Commuter Rail, too–TriMet, on their website for the project:
http://trimet.org/commuterrail/stations.htm
estimates 30 minutes between trains. And to boot, they only run during “commute hours”. Plus, seriously–who’s going to ride a train from Beaverton to Wilsonville? I could think of a lot better ways to spend $117.3 million. And it’s fixed infrastructure, too. It’s not possible to change the route.
Forgive me for being blunt, but building more of these is not a good investment in the slightest. If you are going to be creating a “chronogeographically dependent” (CGD) form of transportation–which is what mass transit is, since it relies upon fixed routes and restricts travel times–it needs to be significantly faster and more convenient than any “chronogeographically independent” (CGI) form of transport (i.e. cars, but also biking and walking).
That is why commuter rail like the WES, as well as the MAX, the Streetcar, etc. don’t work–they’re “puddle-jumper” trains. And it is why the Japanese shinkansen is viable–it goes 188mph on average–you can’t drive that fast on the freeway. That is what fixed passenger rail infrastructure is for–not “puddle-jumpers” with dozens of at-grade crossings, going slower than what you can do even on low-level surface arterials.
Alex L sums that up well. I however disagree that the MAX isn’t very useful, it maintains decent travel times and cost per seat and definitely lowers operational costs for TriMet…
but…
It definitely could be a TON BETTER. The Streetcar on the other hand is a very questionable investment in every single imaginable way.
Bus & MAX work well, streetcar isn’t really helping much – it mostly is siphoning funds that could be better spent somewhere else. Especially now that the tourist effect is already attained, we don’t really need to expand the system.
Let’s try to keep this commuter-rail focused in keeping with the original topic… buses, streetcars, and MAX do not compete with freight for space on the same tracks.
But there is something else to think of: much of the stuff that is shipped via rail in the US is shipped by barges in Europe, which frees up room on the tracks for passengers and priority freight. So the question is, where is that wood going? And would shipping it via the Panama Canal be a better solution?
But you know what we’ll see next? BARGES AS THE NEXT COMMUTING SOLUTION!
It will be great. There will be so much space for passengers, your neighbor can vomit without getting your shoes wet! The leisurely speed of a barge will allow you to get all sorts of work done; imagine yourself feeling the gentle rolls of the waves as you tap out text messages on your Blackberry, or the old-timey charm of a 180-decibel Fog Horn while talking with your boss/secretary/kids. Not to mention the exciting adventure of the occasional suicide jumper, or having to rescue someone who fell off.
What a way to travel!
These comments pretty much put the hammer down on spending $100-200 million for commuter rail to Newberg and McMinnville on UP rails. The recently completed study says the same thing. Yet, every time it is brought up the local governments fall all over themselves to spend money for another study to see if it is feasible.
Yet, every time it is brought up the local governments fall all over themselves to spend money for another study to see if it is feasible.
My guess is because every few years, a group of constituents demand something be done about the traffic on the roads.
UP isn’t in the passenger rail business now (if they wanted to, Amtrak probably wouldn’t be around)… what makes anyone think they want to get into it?
Something I sorta imagine, however, is that the state of the rail system in the region/nation is something akin to Capitol Highway still being the road between Portland and Salem, without Barbur Blvd. or I-5, with everyone wanting to cram more and more semis down it everyday.
I say expand the capacity of the rail lines so both freight and passenger trains can be accommodated, instead of having to choose between them. Kind of like how it was argued that the transit funding pie should be expanded so that both dependent and choice riders can be served.
In many places, including between Eugene and Portland, the rail line is the equivalent of a one lane road with turnouts.
If we want commuter rail, we need to build custom rail systems that either add tracks to the freight system or bring in new ROW for the tracks. The idea of displacing, or even obstructing freight rail is really absurd, environmentally and economically. It’s bad for the environment, for the customers (you and me), and it is bad for our pocket books.
I have disagreed with you before, Adron, but this is one of the best things I’ve seen posted here. One thing America should invest in (along with the Interstates, US Highway System, and local bridges everywhere) is an Interstate Highway System for Rail.
I know that sometimes I seem pro-roads, others pro-buses, and others pro-rail, but it’s because our investment in each is currently pathetic. We should double or triple our infrastructure funding in this nation immediately. If it means taking lottery funds, income tax, sales tax (in WA, I know…), property tax, motor vehicle registration fees, etc, I don’t care.
I’ll pay what it takes, I want better rail, road, and bus options. We can do a CRC project (local road instead of bridge, please?!?!), Caruther’s Crossing (for the transit folks), some neighborhood bus circulators (like streetcars, for the bus people), some bike lanes (to spite someone), as well as high-speed commuter rail (through PDX, including some better high speed options for NW Portland) to Vancouver, Eugene, Salem, Seattle and beyond.
We can fun this through gamblers, property, income, business, fuel, bike tire, transit, environmental, tourism, shoe, travel, and other taxes. Pinch a penny here and there, any nobody cares.
Transportation has an impact on each of those parts of our society. Gambling is made easier with better access. Property gains value when it’s accessible (or not accessible, in the case of McMansions), income can be increased by reduced costs at work, better transportation moves freight, which can affect nearly every job, businesses thus make more profits, fuel is less wasted, bike tires, ummm, get cheaper to sell from reduced truck transport?, transit is improved by shorter travel time, the environment is better from less congestion, tourism is made easier for travelers from Seattle, San Fran, and other places, shoes are less worn from, uhhh, hitting the brakes or something, travel to and from the airport and Amtrak is easier, and other is other. Wow, that’s a heluva run-on sentence, but I think my point comes across. Rather than fight about who pays, how about we all do, and we benefit us all?
Since a lot of people are disputing Union Pacific’s claims, what are the suggestions on how to encourage commuter rail on Union Pacific routes right here in the Portland metro area?
As I see, there are only two real routes – Portland east, and Portland south. Portland East basically goes to Troutdale, and then into the Gorge. (If anyone truly is suggesting “commuter rail” to Hood River, you might as well say you are pro-sprawl.) So that leaves Portland South, which would serve Salem.
Frankly, I’ve encouraged this route numerous times, and every time I get a lot of flack for supporting it because of who-knows-what reason. So even within the pro-commuter rail group, there is a lot of agreement with Union Pacific’s viewpoint.
BNSF has been a lot more hospitable towards commuter ops and runs the Sounder trains in Seattle. However there seems to be actual opposition to commuter rail on BNSF lines north of Portland (to Camas/Washougal and to possibly as far north as Kelso/Longview), in part because commuter rail would compete with MAX.
Which, IMO, makes no sense.
Jason Barbour wrote: UP isn’t in the passenger rail business now
That’s not correct.
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/corporate_info/uprrover.shtml
Although Union Pacific Railroad’s primary role is transporting freight, it also runs a substantial commuter train operation in Chicago.
http://metrarail.com/Sched/cnw_n/cnwn.shtml
http://metrarail.com/Sched/cnw_nw/cnw_nw.shtml
http://metrarail.com/Sched/cnw_w/cnw_w.shtml
i think we are forgeting one thing, if a freight railroad doesnt have capacity for passenger rail they wont allow passenger rail on their tracks. in the case of most amtrak lines, there is typically only one train a day on already high capacity trunk routes where its fairly easy to slip in 1 train a day on a track with 30+ trains a day. or the freight railroads demand capacity improvements like what is going on with the cascades route or the WES linr. though its not like WES is that major of a freight route to begin with and more freight can go at night plus the capital improvements offset the disruptions from the increased passenger rail.
Missing from the conversation is the big picture and the fact that a carload of lumber is likely to be going halfway across the country or even coast to coast. In comparison, the commuter passenger service would undoubtedly only serve a few miles within a specific region and possibly on some of the most congested tracks of railroad. Moreover, the Union Pacific like other railroads is a for profit business, not a taxpayer subsidized money loosing entity that if using the same tracks certainly could act as a bottleneck to their profitability.
Erik,
Did you get the Yamhill County Passenger Rail Study?
I did, but I haven’t had a chance to go over it. Thanks for sending it to me!!!!
Thank you for the correction, Erik.
AFAIK the trackage to McMinville and Newberg is PNWR’s, and if they could get sweet infrastructure subsidies like they’ve gotten with WES, I would expect them to be open to running commuter trains. (commuter operations to/from forest grove have been mentioned in the past.)
PNWR has (more-or-less) parallel trackage from Portland to Eugene, so UP wouldn’t necessarily have to be involved to run passenger operations that far.
as far as eastside goes, I bet OPR would love to run samtrak again from OMSI to Milwaukie, and I wonder if the old EPTC route to Clackamas could be reinstated…
Chicago runs reasonably frequent commuter rail trains, on busy freight tracks. One key point here is that many of their corridors are triple-tracked (or better).
I think the assumption here should be that commuter rail will usually require significant upgrades, but that if this is done, the two can realistically co-exist. I would expect UP would jump on board if we could offer major capacity expansions on their lines to support commuter rail.
Aaron J. Grier wrote: I bet OPR would love to run samtrak again from OMSI to Milwaukie
I think that if Richard Samuels wanted to run SamTrak, that he would.
There’s a reason he isn’t. He still owns the passenger car, the caboose, and has plenty of locomotives (the locomotives that were actually used for SamTrak have been sold, though, but the other locomotives will work just as well.)
Unit wrote: I think the assumption here should be that commuter rail will usually require significant upgrades, but that if this is done, the two can realistically co-exist. I would expect UP would jump on board if we could offer major capacity expansions on their lines to support commuter rail.
There’s a huge reason why Chicago has an extensive commuter rail network.
Most of the railroads back in the day were headquartered in, around, or near, or had major offices, in Chicago. Chicago was, and still is, a major railroad hub. So most routes in and out of Chicago were double-tracked (plus the famous “triple-track ‘raceway’” to Joliet).
Historically, Portland has had only one “commuter rail” operation that wasn’t part of the interurban system – Southern Pacific did run a frequent service between Portland and Lake Oswego on the Jefferson Street Branch. Originally using a steam locomotive and a single passenger coach, it later was operated with Red Electric equipment.
By 1929, this service ended. SP attempted to use motorcars (what we call a “DMU” today) but that lasted only a couple of years, and by 1935 all passenger rail service on SP lines in Oregon, except for the mainline and the Siskiyou Line, plus a rider coach on the Tillamook Branch, was eliminated.
Neither the Union Pacific, nor the Spokane, Portland & Seattle, nor the Oregon Electric, nor the United Railways, nor the Northern Pacific, nor the Great Northern, provided any type of “commuter” service in the Portland metro area. The United Railways could be considered an interurban and did operate some trolley services in Northwest Portland, but hardly provided what could be considered a “commuter service” considering that it took a very long, out-of-the-way route to reach the bustling cities of…North Plains…Banks…Manning…and Vernonia. Hardly significant then, and hardly significant today.
I should provide one small correction…
During World War II, the Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway did provide commuter service to ferry workers to/from the Kaiser Shipyards in East Vancouver and Portland.
This service did not exist prior to the War, nor was it continued after the War.
This service could be reinstated, by using the BNSF (ex-SP&S) mainline from Washougal, west through Camas, East Vancouver, Vancouver – then turning south over Hayden Island, St. Johns, and then through Willbridge and into Union Station. (ODOT paid for significant upgrades to the 9.5 miles of track in Oregon; and the route on the Washington side is currently double-tracked however is congested.) If there was enough demand, a spur route could operate to Rivergate Terminals 5 and 6 (a line that was predominately paid for by the Port of Portland).
A second route could start from Kelso and operate south through Kalama, Woodland, Ridgefield, and the Felida neighborhood before reaching Vancouver (on a route which WSDOT has paid considerable amounts of money to upgrade, and a state funded project is currently underway in Vancouver.)
A third route could use the Clark County owned railroad from Battle Ground and Brush Prairie.
One thing to think about is just how much of the railroad network is missing.
At one time in the US there were close to 260,000 route miles of track, today it’s around 140,000 route miles.
A lot of abondoned rail lines need to be relaid. Also a lot of existing lines need to be upgraded(CTC, multi-tracked, electrified).
Salt Lake City has commuter trains running along Union Pacific track for that matter, though they also help UP by adding extra capcity to their system. http://www.rideuta.com/
http://www.rideuta.com/files/FrontRunner%20NorthFacts908.pdf
http://www.utahrails.net/gallery2/v/utahrails/frontrunner/
In Miami, Tri-rail added track to help passenger and freight trains.
http://www.tri-rail.com/double_tracking/fact_sheet.htm
Salt Lake City’s new commuter rail system is running over UP track, though they also added some new track in places help keep things fluid for freight and passenger trains.