Rail infrastructure that was hastily constructed in the early days of
WWII to serve the shipyards in south Richmond and which was virtually
abandoned for 60 years has now become part of a distribution network to
the western states for Asian imports coming through the Port of Oakland.
Mile-long trains moving at 10 miles an hour or less can block as many as
eight grade crossings at once, including Regatta Way, Marina Bay
Parkway, Marina Way, Harbour Way South, West Cutting Boulevard, 2nd
Street, Ohio Avenue and the Richmond Parkway (Garrard Leg). The
consequences are numerous, including delays of drivers on the blocked
roads and delay of fire and ambulance emergency vehicles. See
June 1 Increase in Long Trains Through South Richmond, May 29, 2008.
The City Council, for the second time since 2004, has authorized the
city manager to join with BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) to appeal
to the Surface Transportation Board to allow BNSF access to the Union
Pacific tracks, which parallel I-580 through Richmond and have higher
speeds and fewer grade crossings.
What can you do? Contact the Surface Transportation Board to protest.
The
Surface Transportation Board website does not list email addresses,
but the contact information for the chairman is as follows:
Chairman – Charles D. Nottingham, Suite 1220
Surface Transportation Board
395 E Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20423-0001
202-245-0200
If anyone can get an email address, let me know.
Richmond pledges action on rail-crossing delays
By Katherine Tam
West County Times
Article Launched: 06/04/2008 06:22:45 PM
PDT
More freight trains, long a headache for drivers idling in traffic and
residents living near tracks, are moving through more densely populated
areas of Richmond.
A federal agency has nixed a deal between Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railway and Union Pacific that allowed BNSF to run 120-car trains on
UP tracks that circumvented the center of the city. The new ruling means
one to two long trains a day will run on BNSF tracks with more grade
crossings through more of the city, traveling at no more than 10 mph.
City officials on Tuesday pledged to work with Burlington Northern
and back efforts to divert long trains. The two rail companies are in
talks and seeking arbitation.
Train traffic from the Port of Oakland may be an economic plus for
the region, but Richmond Councilman Jim Rogers said: "This broader
benefit should not be done on our backs. This seems to be one more case
where people just do what they want to do. We're suppose to roll over
and play dead, and I'm really tired of it."
The disputed deal dates to around 2002, when Burlington Northern and
Union Pacific changed their track-sharing agreement, which allowed BNSF
to use a UP line that runs through parts of Richmond but generally
skirts some busier areas; trains on the UP line can run faster than 10
mph. The federal Surface Transportation Board approved that agreement.
In February 2007, Union Pacific petitioned federal
officials to reverse approval. The railway contended it made a mistake
negotiating that part of the agreement and that Burlington Northern
trains are interfering with UP and Amtrak operations, according to a
Transportation Board document.
The board agreed to change its original approval because the revised
agreement initially was presented as one with minor changes. The federal
STB did not mean to approve such a substantial revision, a board
majority wrote in its decision. The new ruling took effect Sunday.
Trains long have been considered a nuisance, blocking streets,
holding up traffic and jostling neighbors with loud horns and rumbling.
Underscoring the point Tuesday, several people arrived late to the
Richmond City Council meeting because trains stalled traffic at two
intersections. Resident Jackie Thompson, who was among those delayed,
said drivers at the second crossing backed up on the street and cut
through a nearby business to take an alternate route to City Hall, a
move that she said wasn't particularly safe but was understandable.
Thompson, who lives near a crossing, said trains also disrupt
neighbors.
"When that train comes, the long ones, it runs sometimes 15 to 20
minutes," she said. "I still can't hear the TV, can't talk on the
phone."
Burlington Northern operates about two trains a day to and from the
Port of Oakland, fewer than the six to eight a day it used to run, said
Juan Acosta, the railway's government affairs director. Train traffic
has dropped over the years as the Port of Oakland lost business to
competing ports and imports have decreased.
Over the last few years, Richmond city officials have tried to
provide some relief for residents near train tracks by creating four
"quiet zones" where train operators are barred from regularly sounding
their horns except in emergencies when a person, animal or property is
in danger.
The city is either studying or planning safety improvements at some
crossings, such as a sidewalk or a median to prevent drivers from going
around lowered railroad arms. In addition, a fifth quiet zone in the
Market Avenue area is in the works, City Engineer Rich Davidson said.
Reach Katherine Tam at 510-262-2787 or
ktam@bayareanewsgroup.com.
Front Page News:
Oakland Port Rail Proposal’s Impacts May Hit Berkeley Landscape,
Traffic
By Richard Brenneman
Thursday June 05, 2008
Is Berkeley being railroaded? That’s the question
that was raised at the last Planning Commission meeting by both
supporters and potential foes of a plan to upgrade and increase rail
service through West Berkeley.
Some Richmond residents are also feeling that they’re on the other side
of the tracks because of proposed routing of more mile-long trains
through their city, disrupting access to neighborhoods like Marina Bay.
Concerns in Berkeley were raised by an April 10 decision by the
California Transportation Commission awarding the Port of Oakland $74
million to begin the process of upgrading a 37-mile stretch of Union
Pacific Rail lines between Oakland and Martinez.
That sum was part of a larger $456 million allocation—requested backing
for rail upgrades reaching from the Tehachapi Mountains in the south to
Donner Summit in the east—all designed to speed the move of goods
through Northern California’s premier seaport.
The immediate focus of the port’s $74 million grant is the improvement
of a 6.6-mile stretch of the line running from the port to the Stege
Marsh area in South Richmond, where the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) line joins with the Union Pacific.
At the time the application was filed last year, the rails between those
two points were carrying 66 trains daily, with 44 Amtrak passenger runs
and the rest consisting of freight trains from the two railroads.
If funded, the improvements would boost freight traffic from its current
handling of 30 percent of the port’s container traffic to 50 percent
“without bringing gridlock to the corridor,” according to the funding
application.
As the nation’s fourth busiest port, Oakland handles 99 percent of
Northern California’s waterborne goods, and while Oakland handles the
lion’s share of agricultural exports from the Central Valley, its volume
of imports jumped more than 80 percent in the five years ending in 2006,
a rate of growth eight times that of exports.
The proposal by Oakland officials calls for doubling the number of main
line rail tracks along the 6.6-mile corridor to four, anticipating an
increase in size and frequency of freight trains.
“This could have very significant impact on the community, and I want to
be sure we’re all aware of it,” said Berkeley Planning Commissioner
Harry Pollack, commenting on a letter on the plan submitted to the panel
by Berkeley Design Advocates.
Land Use Planning Manager Debra Sanderson said city staff had met with
officials from the port a week earlier “trying to understand what’s
actually being proposed.”
“The conclusion I came away with is that nobody really knows.” she said.
“Where the railroad is on this is a mystery ... but it will have a big
effect on what happens in West Berkeley and how well we can protect the
environment in West Berkeley.”
Not only would all overcrossings from the bay to the High Sierra have to
be rebuilt to accommodate the expanded lines, but accomplishing the
project’s goal would mean coordinating actions of a number of agencies,
“including the railroad, which has a habit of acting somewhat
independently,” she said.
In addition to rebuilding the overcrossings at University and Ashby
avenues, the project will impact the roads in West Berkeley that cross
the tracks at grade level: Gilman, Camellia, Cedar, Virginia and Addison
streets and Bancroft Way and Hearst Avenue.
“They’re also talking about closing some streets,” said Chair James
Samuels.
Funds come from the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and
Port Security Bond Act of 2006, which California voters approved on Nov.
7, 2006, when they endorsed Proposition 1B. The specific program
involved is the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund.
Just where the city would get funding for upgrading the overcrossings
and grade crossings remains an open question, with the railroads
unlikely to provide any of the cash, said Commissioner David Stoloff,
though federal funds to supplement state funding were possible within
the next three years.
“The message is that we need to be involved in the planning process,” he
said.
Sanderson said there has been talk of reinvigorating a
multi-jurisdictional planning group that had been involved early in the
planning process “and becoming more proactive,” joined by all the
impacted communities.
Merilee Mitchell, a former city council candidate who often speaks
during the commission’s public comment sessions, said that unlike
Berkeley Design Advocates, she doesn’t want to see a joint powers group
created because “they all involve the seven key groups,” agencies that
include the Air Quality Management District, the Association of Bay Area
Government, and the Congestion Management Agency.
With a potential change in West Berkeley zoning regulations already
under discussion by the commission, a major change in rail traffic,
which could involve the railroad taking more land for right-of-way and
reduced traffic access, adds yet another wrinkle to the complex policies
of a part of the city under increasing development pressure.
For more on the issue, see the Port of Oakland’s web pages at:
www.portofoakland.com/maritime/tcif.asp.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s section on Proposition 1B
projects is here:
www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/infrastructure.
The California Transportation Commission’s pages are here:
www.catc.ca.gov/programs/tcif.htm.
Richmond woes
Meanwhile, some Richmond residents and City Councilmember Tom Butt are
sounding alarms about BNSF's plans to up the number of mile-long
supertrains running along its line through that city.
The railroad has filed a request for expedited action with the
Department of Transportation in Washington to allow the company to
expand the number of so-called “intermodal” trains through the
city—freights carrying containers plucked from ships and trucked to rail
cars atop when they are shipped across the country.
A decision by the board means that, effective Monday, the rail line has
been forced to redirect from one to two of the lengthy intermodal trains
through Richmond rather than along the main Union Pacific Line.
That in turns means that people who need to cross the grade crossing in
neighborhoods like Marina Bay may be forced to wait until the long, slow
trains have passed—already a subject of much irritation from existing
traffic.
Unless Washington approves the BNSF request, Richmond residents can
expect even longer delays. |
