Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, Washington May 11, 2012

Transcription

1 Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, Washington May 11, 2012 Comments concerning the April 16, 2012 Notice of Application: Gateway Pacific Terminal major development permit, variance and shoreline substantial development permit Communitywise Bellingham (CWB) has provided your office our briefing paper to the Bellingham City Council under separate cover. That submission also included an annotated bibliography and an independent transportation consultant s review of the railroad corridor through Bellingham upon which our findings stand. URL's to these attachments are included below. CWB claims no special expertise in transportation planning itself, but provides these comments as part of our role to "inform the conversation." Our primary mission is to research facts and present them to the community in order to advance understanding of potential impacts on Bellingham as well as what might be done to eliminate or to mitigate them. We believe the finding that there is insufficient capacity through Bellingham for GPT as planned has been well established by WSDOT and the transportation experts. What we add to the conversation here is the common sense notion that if the new railroad yard at Custer is directly related to the project and therefore included the permit application, then additional Whatcom County infrastructure that is essential to allow the planned volume of trains to actually reach that yard should also be included in the permit application. The South Bellingham siding extension has been identified as the preferred infrastructure solution that would enable the planned volume of trains to reach the Custer facility. That siding would have major impacts that threaten long established community plans and investments for connecting Bellingham with the Bay. We have included URL's below to a map of that siding on Bellingham s waterfront and an overview discussion of impacts and mitigation opportunities keyed to the map. The Transit Safety Management report offers no reason to believe that there is any alternative solution available. WSDOT recently applied nearly $100 million in windfall TARP monies to projects pulled in whole from these same WSDOT plans. The siding plan is essentially shovel ready except for an EIS. We believe that complete infrastructure plans to allow the additional 18 trains a day through the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck need to be included in the permit application. Assurances that this siding will not be needed or that capacity problems can somehow be taken care of later may be put forward. In light of the compelling evidence that the South Bellingham siding

2 extension is required, any such suggestions would be meaningless without a formal independent capacity analysis of a detailed alternative proposal. We understand that BNSF has not announced specific plans. The WSDOT documents show there were several minor adjustments in siding location considered and rejected as being inferior to this location. It is the only siding that has been preliminarily engineered, budgeted, and included ever since as the preferred solution in planning and simulations. Note that even all the rejected siding locations included major infrastructure construction and concomitant environmental impacts in or close to Bellingham. As close observers of the public process, we have been pleased with the professional manner in which all the Agencies have dispatched their responsibilities. We see no fault by the Agencies in this case. It is reasonable to assume that SSA Marine had no knowledge of this siding requirement and that BNSF thought of the need as simply "business as usual. That being said, the omission represents a serious defect in the current permit application that needs to be corrected. If left unaddressed it could lead to future litigation that would slow the process to no one's benefit. BNSF should be asked to submit detail plans for all infrastructure required in Whatcom County to insure delivery of the additional 18 trains a day through the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck. That information is needed as a supplement to the permit application. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Shannon Wright Executive Director Links Bellingham City Council Briefing BhamCCFinal.pdf Annotated Bibliography Transit Safety Management Capacity Study pdf South Bellingham Siding Map Discussion Keyed to Map Locations

3 From: Tyler Schroeder To: Stephanie Drake Date: 5/11/2012 7:57 AM Subject: Fwd: Followup Bellingham City Council Breifing Attachments: CWB RR Impact Briefing.pdf; CWB Briefing BibliographyWithExtracts.pdf; Bell ingham coal trains final.pdf Here is a report that should be put on the website under the NOA section. Thanks, Tyler Tyler R. Schroeder Planning Manager Phone: (360) ext Fax: (360) Tschroed@co.whatcom.wa.us Address: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Dr. Bellingham, WA >>> Jack Delay <jackdelay@communitywisebellingham.org> 5/10/2012 3:05 PM >>> Hello Tyler Patricia will be able to drop off a copy of the complete presentation to the City Council at your office later this afternoon. I have attached electronic copies of the three documents which we believe are of interest at this time. They will form the basis for a comment we are drafting about the permit applications and the infrastructure construction required in Whatcom County to operate the terminal. I have CC'd the other agencies as a courtesy. The Briefing paper presents the key findings. The Bibliography expands on the references in the briefing with annotated pages from the original WSDOT and other source documents. The TSM coal train report explains the principles of capacity determination and concludes in the last two pages that the findings of the WSDOT documents we cite remain valid. We asked TSM for the comprehensive explanation of how capacity is determined because we fully expect BNSF to say something along the lines "don't worry, we'll figure it out" or that the all work at Custer will somehow help. The well developed principles explained in that document show that the past WSDOT analysis, in which BNSF played an advisory role, are correct and that no improvements beyond the ends of the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck will have significant impact on capacity. Jack Delay, President Communitywise Bellingham Informing the conversation. CommunitywiseBellingham.org Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

4 Communitywise Bellingham Briefing Presented to the Bellingham City Council Gateway Pacific Terminal Train Impacts on the Bellingham Waterfront May 7, 2012

5 Background In the fall of 2011 Communitywise Bellingham (CWB) asked individual Bellingham City Council members to identify what aspects of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project needed clarifying information. The top issues for City Council members were 1) economic implications the subject of CWB s first report to the City Council and 2) potential train traffic impacts in the City. 1 In response to these issues, CWB began reviewing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) documents and other official reports on train traffic and rail infrastructure through Bellingham. We discovered that the rail section between Bow and Ferndale will form a major bottleneck for the increased train traffic that is needed for GPT to operate. The preferred plan to address this bottleneck is the construction of a new siding extending a second rail line along a major section of the Bellingham waterfront. This need for a new siding came as a surprise to CWB. This component of the project is not found in GPT documents nor has Burlington North Santa Fe (BNSF) disclosed it. This missing component was found hiding in plain sight within WSDOT studies and technical appendices. 2 In order to be certain that this information was not out of date and determine if newer technologies for managing train traffic, like Positive Train Control, could be employed to avoid the new siding, 3 CWB commissioned a complete review by Transit Safety Management (TSM): Potential Local Direct Effects Of Increased Coal Train Traffic On BNSF Railway Through Bellingham. 4 Because of the major waterfront impacts of the new siding and huge associated mitigation costs, CWB commissioned a second TSM study to evaluate the BNSF public statement that an alternative inland route was impractical : Coal Train Routing Alternatives In Skagit and Whatcom. 5 These reports present in full the railroad operational and technical principles governing, 1) analysis of train routes, 2) increasing a segment s capacity and 3) locating sidings. The two reports apply the latest State and County data to these principles in forming their conclusions. 1 The PFM report is available online at communitywisebellingham.org. 2 Easily accessible online documents from WSDOT describe the siding in ways that are not obvious to the casual reader, such as milepost numbers. 3 Positive Train Control is a new system required on combined freight and passenger routes by Some have suggested new controls would allow fleeting of trains or other ways to avoid building the siding. The TSM report found such suggestions to be false. 4 TSM is a national transportation consultant with extensive experience in Washington including projects for WSDOT, BNSF and Sound Transit. 5 Both TSM reports are available at

6 KEY FINDINGS 1. Gateway Pacific Terminal will require increasing rail capacity in the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck. Washington State has studied this situation and has established the capacity for rail traffic through Bellingham at 14 to 15 trains per day. 6 Current train traffic uses most of that capacity. 7 GPT would add 18 trains per day. 8 Capacity issues are well understood. 9 GPT cannot operate without construction of new rail capacity in this corridor Eighteen trains a day is taken as the level of GPT traffic for important reasons. GPT s Project Information Document and permit application both declare the intended export volume at full capacity to require 18 additional trains a day (16 for coal exports). 10 By law, the applicant s stated plans must reflect their intentions, and they govern the review process as well as Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Given the growing coal export market and the expanding Powder River Basin mining operations, there is no reason to believe GPT will choose to operate at less than full capacity. This additional rail capacity is necessary just for the 10 additional trains a day for Phase A siding along Bellingham s waterfront is the preferred solution. Numerous Department of Transportation (WSDOT) studies conducted in concert with BNSF and transportation consultants have examined the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck problem and settled on a preferred solution: Extend the existing South Bellingham siding along the waterfront. 11 This solution is driven by the fact that Bellingham is in a unique position; it is at the middle of the capacity bottleneck between the Bow and Ferndale sidings. Building a new siding at the middle of this bottleneck is the only way to double the capacity. This siding extension is the only option for which preliminary engineering and budgets have been prepared. 12 It has been used every time simulations are performed for transit studies, most recently in Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study; Task 3 Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints, Pages 14, 18 and Bellingham Herald, May 18, 2011, BNSF says Bellingham is only practical route to Cherry Point cargo terminal. 8 Permit filed with Whatcom County, see Q & A section for complete discussion. 9 The Transit Safety Management study released with this report includes a complete capacity primer. 10 Current permit application PID, Pages 455, Table Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan, page 426, Whatcom Council of Governments, Seattle. WA Vancouver, B.C. Crossborder Freight Rail Improvement Study, Table 52 page Whatcom Council of Governments, Seattle. WA Vancouver, B.C. Diesel Multiple Unit Feasibility Study, Table 6, Pages 54.

7 BNSF has said an alternate inland route to service GPT is impractical and will not be considered. 14 This leaves the Bellingham siding extension as the preferred option for GPT to operate. Projects that are developed to the same extent as the Bellingham siding is in state documents are regularly implemented with little modification as the nearly $!00 million of windfall TARP money spent recently shows. 3. A Waterfront siding will affect access to parks, recreation areas and businesses. The new siding would be constructed by extending the South Bellingham siding from Fairhaven to Downtown. 15 Building this second track along this entire stretch of waterfront on the shoreline side of the main track will have many impacts. It would necessitate permanent closure of railroad crossings in three locations: Bayview Drive access to Boulevard Park (vehicle and pedestrian) South Bay Trail access to Boulevard Park (pedestrian) Wharf Street access to the south end of the former Georgia Pacific site and the planned waterfront park (vehicle and pedestrian) The siding may also require closure of the Port of Bellingham dock and commercial boat haul out facility adjacent to the Padden Creek Lagoon. Elimination of parking and all vehicular access to Boulevard Park will impact park visitors from Bellingham and the County. Loss of emergency services access would limit permissible park activities. Siding operations will make the problems of increased frequency for crossing closures at both Post Point and the Roeder sections of the waterfront worse. Because the train waiting in the siding must immediately accelerate from a stop, closures will be longer in duration and occur in rapid succession. Backed up traffic may not clear between closures. With the Ferry Terminal, shipyards, boat launching ramps, restaurants, waterfront businesses, parks and other recreational areas all subject to reduced access there will be many unpredictable impacts. A map has been included that will help identify the potential impacts around the waterfront. It also includes a variety of ideas about opportunities to mitigate the overall impacts. 4. Gateway Pacific Terminal train traffic will impact future passenger rail and local business uses. It should be noted that the need to build this long siding is specifically related to the new GPT freight traffic. A 2011 Whatcom Council of Governments study reviewed by BNSF, established that Bellingham 14 The TSM study released with this briefing also concludes the route is impractical. We agree with other county residents that there are many potential factors that will determine the final GPT route and siding addition. Nonbinding BNSF statements are no replacement for a detailed rail plan to deliver coal to GPT. 15 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan, page 426, 427.

8 could add at least three additional passenger round trips without this siding. 16 This included a third mid day Amtrak round trip to Vancouver plus both morning and evening interurban round trips connecting with Sound Transit. In this same document, both the authors and BNSF indicated that the addition of GPT traffic could change that conclusion. Capacity analysis shows that even after building this new siding, the additional 18 GPT trains will make this segment even more congested than it is today. BNSF's recent announcement that they need to route three tracks under the new $40 million Cornwall bridge comes as no surprise. Siding plans call for bringing it almost to Central Avenue (to attain maximum length) which requires 2 tracks. The desire to add a 3rd track reflects the need for capacity options in the future because GPT traffic itself will use more than the capacity added by the new siding. BNSF may already have additional capacity plans or they may need to do more analysis, but this would give flexibility for either another siding or a second main track as possible solutions. WSDOT has noted that the Class 1 Railroads like BNSF have adopted a business model that promotes longer and more frequent point to point traffic as being more profitable. 17 They are using pricing to discourage other uses, so local business uses of rail capacity will not be as viable as in the past. Their reports also note this higher frequency and longer traffic represent impacts on communities that should be a policy concern for the State. Conclusions The goal of presenting this information is to ensure that the public and local jurisdictions are aware of these well established but little understood facts. It has been easy for policy makers to read the abstract concept of a siding extension and not realize what it really entails. That is where we began with our research. The impacts of the new siding required for an additional 18 trains per day to GPT are very significant. The siding is clearly necessary for the terminal to operate as specified in GPT s plans. As such, we believe the siding should have been included in the permit application. At a minimum, the City and the EIS agencies must act to ensure that this Bellingham siding which may be the single largest cause of off site GPT impacts is detailed in the same manner as the project s other railroad construction and included in the scope of the EIS. 18 Additionally, the question of who will pay for the mitigation measures related to this siding must be addressed. These costs could be substantial, and taxpayers could be asked to foot the bill. 16 Whatcom Council of Governments, Seattle, WA Vancouver, B.C. Diesel Multiple Unit Feasibility Study, Page Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study, Addendum to Interim Report #1, July The EIS agencies are Whatcom County, WA Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of Engineers.

9 CWB could not hope to identify all impacts or envision all opportunities to mitigate them. We do not present our accompanying map and discussion as either proscriptive or exhaustive. We do hope that it will help spark community discussion about the best ways to protect our decades long achievements and continuing plans to "Connect Bellingham with the Bay."

10 Annotated Bibliography with Key Extracted Pages Studies Relevant to GPT s Impact on Bellingham Rail and Waterfront Note that many of the WSDOT Documents from 2006 reference Amtrak Cascades in their titles. This is because funding came through the passenger rail program. The bulk of this major 2006 effort involved the overall freight rail system and in fact one of the recommendations of professional transportation policy consultants to this effort was that the state needed to start identifying what part of projects under the passenger program actually benefitted freight rail and to insure the benefitting parties (BNSF) participate by paying their fair share. WSDOT, Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study, Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints Technical Memorandum. Pages 14, 18, 52 Establishes that capacity through Bellingham is 14.4 trains per day, that the South Bellingham siding is too short for most freight trains, and that extending that siding would double that capacity. WSDOT, Washington State LongRange Plan for Amtrak Cascades, February 2006 Chapter Five: Amtrak Cascades Needed Infrastructure Improvements, Page 59. Establishes that extending the South Bellingham siding is required for increased capacity. This is a frequently read document but it does not spell out what the siding extension actually entails: building a second track next to the main track on the shoreline side of the waterfront from Padden Lagoon to Downtown. Our consultant informed us of technical appendices with actual descriptions and decision making details. These are not described or published online by WSDOT and must be requested on CD. WSDOT, Amtrak Cascades Operating and Capital Plan, February 2006, Appendix B. Page B36 to B38 Describes details of the railroad in the Bellingham section, including the problem with the South Bellingham siding as well as soil stability issues and monitoring near the Airport (milepost 100). WSDOT, Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan February 2006, Chapter Four: Capital Plan. Page 426, 427 Detailed description of extending the siding from Amtrak station along waterfront to the GP site, including closing grade crossings to Boulevard Park and Wharf Street. Explains why other options like extending the siding south or building it further north will not work. WSDOT, Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan February 2006, Chapter Two: Methodology. Page 24, 5 Description of actual traffic data provided by BNSF in 2006 (different from many claims). Whatcom Council of Governments, Seattle, WA Vancouver, B.C. Diesel Multiple Unit Feasibility Study, Pages 28, 29 Establishes that the Bellingham siding extension is not needed for major passenger improvements (3 additional round trips). Both BNSF and the authors make clear that if GPT traffic materializes that conclusion needs to be reevaluated. Shows siding still under active consideration. WSDOT, Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study, Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints Second Interim Report, 2006 Pages ES3, ES4 Recommends that cost benefit analysis of who is getting gains needs to be done for fair free market outcomes of who pays. Page 13 Discusses negative impacts of longer heavier trains including grade crossing durations and more (and more frequent) maintenance. Pages 14, 15 Notes that continuous flow of slow coal trains headed east from PRB have made it virtually impossible to schedule timesensitive traffic. WSDOT, Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study, Addendum to Interim Report #1, July 2006 Page 2 Discusses changing business model and pricing as a tool to discourage local traffic. Page 13 Objects to fact out WSDOT Passenger Rail Program does not attempt to break out freightrail benefits of projects. Pages 16 Strong policy recommendations calling for partnership with Class 1 railroad (BNSF) so meaning there is a system of allocating costs and having the benefitting party pay their share. WSDOT, Amtrak Cascades Detail Infrastructure Capital Plans 2004 and 2006 Pages from these two years of project listings show estimated cost from details of BNSF preliminary engineering for the Bellingham siding extension. No other Bellingham siding option has ever been made ready for funding like this.

11 July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study Task 3 Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints Single Track Operation InterbayEverett Junction. Overtaking moves can be made on this segment of track. However, if overtake meets are not coordinated properly, resulting train delays may be extensive because of the extended distance (up to 12 miles) required for each overtake due to the absence of crossovers on the double track segments. (See Figure 3.2, Locations 17, 18 and 19.) Everett JunctionPA Junction. The 2.5 miles of single track between PA Junction and Everett Junction, and the 25 mph speed limit, restricts the capacity of the entire line to 45 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Location 21.) Everett, WashingtonNew Westminster, British Columbia The capacity of the Everett, WashingtonNew Westminster, BC route is 7 TPD, and is limited by the running time between the siding at Swift and Thornton Yard and the assumption that Canada Customs will continue to stop northward trains at White Rock, British Columbia, for inspection and that U.S. customs will continue holding trains on the main track at Blaine, Washington, before allowing them to proceed at 5 mph through the VACIS (Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System) at Swift. Canadian stops on the main track at White Rock occur randomly. BNSF has begun originating and terminating trains in the CN Thornton Yard in Surrey, BC. This operational change increases the running time between sidings to 2 hours 5 minutes. If a stop on the main track for Customs at White Rock is assumed, the practical capacity of the line is reduced to 5.8 TPD. Individual segments of the route have greater practical capacities: Between Everett (PA Junction) and Burlington, the capacity is 24 TPD, and is limited by the running time from Delta Junction (including 10 mph operation into and out of Delta Yard) to English siding. Between Burlington and Ferndale, capacity is limited to 14.4 TPD by the running time between the Bow and Ferndale sidings. The intervening South Bellingham siding does not accommodate the typical train length on the line. The major capacity restraints in each of the identified segments are summarized below. Refer to Appendix A: Summary of Identified Capacity Constraints for a more detailed description. EverettBurlington Identified capacity restrictions in this segment include: PA JunctionDelta Junction. The line has a capacity of 24 TPD because of lowspeed (15 to 25 mph) operations over 3.8 miles of single track. (See Figure 3.2, Location 22.) 14

12 July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study Task 3 Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints Main line capacity north of Delta Yard is further limited by 15 mph speed restriction around the curve at Delta Junction and a 10 mph speed restriction across Snohomish River Bridge just north of Delta Junction. The capacity on the main line past Delta Yard is limited to 14 through trains per day. The yard can originate or depart an additional 16 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Locations 22 and 46.) Marysville The 20 mph speed limit for freight trains on the Steamboat Slough and Ebey Slough bridges south of Marysville limits the capacity on the line to 24 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Location 23.) EnglishBow The capacity of this segment is 48 trains per day, affected by the running time between the sidings at Mt. Vernon and Bow, if the trains involved fit in the siding at Stanwood and Mt. Vernon. However, typical trains are longer than the sidings at Stanwood and Mt. Vernon, making the capacity limitation 16 trains per day between Bow and English. (See Figure 3.2, Location 24.) BowSwift The capacity of this segment is 14.4 trains per day, affected by the running time between the sidings at Bow and Ferndale. The South Bellingham siding is generally too short to accommodate most of the trains that use this line. (See Figure 3.2, Location 25.) SwiftCN Thornton Yard (Surrey, British Columbia) The capacity between Swift and Thornton Yard (the northern origin and destination of most freight traffic on the EverettNew Westminster route) is affected by running time between meeting points (the siding at Swift and Thornton Yard) and by U.S. and Canada customs procedures. If trains run between Swift and Thornton Yard unaffected by customs procedures, capacity is 12 trains per day, significantly affected by the 5 mph speed limit for southward trains north of Swift (for movement though the VACIS), the 21 mph speed limit at White Rock, and the 15 mph speed limit on the Nicomekl River bridge. (See Figure 3.2, Location 26.) U.S. Customs inspects southward trains at Swift. The duration of the inspection may affect the capacity in either direction because the meeting point may not be available for a subsequent pair of trains, therefore reducing capacity. Northward trains stop at Swift to close and seal the doors of all empty cars. If the duration of this activity is similar to that of the U.S. customs inspection of the southward train on the siding, there is no capacity effect. Canada customs periodically stops northward trains at White Rock for further inspection. When that occurs, capacity is reduced by the stopped train. If each northward train is stopped by Canada Customs, the capacity is reduced to eight trains per day. A8

13 July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study Task 3 Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints Delta Yard. The manual hand throw switches at Delta Yard and the need to double trains together on the main line when leaving the yard further reduces capacity on this segment of track. (See Figure 3.2, Location 46.) Delta Junction Speed Restriction. Main line capacity north of Delta Yard is further limited by a 15 mph speed restriction around the curve at Delta Junction and a 10 mph speed restriction across Snohomish River Bridge just north of Delta Junction. The capacity on the main line through Delta Yard is limited to 14 through trains per day. The yard can originate or depart an additional 16 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Location 46.) Marysville Speed Restrictions. The 20 mph speed limit for freight trains on the Steamboat Slough and Ebey Slough bridges south of Marysville limits the capacity on the line to 24 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Location 23.) EnglishBow capacity is limited to 16 trains per day as the result of the running time between these sidings. Capacity could be increased to 48 trains per day if the sidings at Stanwood and Mt. Vernon can be lengthened to fit longer trains. (See Figure 3.2, Location 24.) BurlingtonFerndale The capacity between Bow and Ferndale sidings is 14.4 trains per day. If the South Bellingham siding is lengthened to accommodate the long trains that use this line, capacity can be increased to roughly twice that number. FerndaleNew Westminster, British Columbia The capacity on this segment is limited by the running time between Swift and Thornton Yard and by U.S. and Canada customs procedures. The capacity is constrained by the 5 mph speed limit though the VACIS for southbound trains at Swift, the 21 mph speed limit at White Rock, and the 15 mph speed limit on the Nicomekl River bridge. (See Figure 3.2, Location 26.) U.S. Custom inspections may affect the capacity in either direction since Swift is used as a meeting siding. Canada customs periodically stops northbound trains at White Rock for further inspection. When that occurs, capacity on the line is further reduced by the stopped train. Vancouver, WashingtonPasco, Washington The capacity of the VancouverPasco route is limited to 36 TPD between Vancouver and Wishram. Capacity is restricted by the 20minute running time between the end of double track at McLaughlin and the siding at Washougal, and between Bingen and North Dalles sidings. (See Figure 3.2, Location 27.) Between Wishram and Pasco the capacity is estimated at 51 TPD if trains are restricted to 7,000 feet. If all the trains on this line are longer than 7,000 feet, then the capacity of the line is reduced to 28 TPD versus the estimated 36 TPD between Vancouver and Wishram. 15

14 geometry in this location (due to the terrain) does not allow trains to travel at high speeds. The estimated construction cost of this project is $147.8 million. Bellingham Siding Extension (rail milepost 92.2 to 97.9) The purpose of this project is to allow passenger and freight trains to pass each other. The current siding at this location is not long enough to accommodate most freight trains. If this siding were not extended and two trains were traveling towards this location on the same track, one of them would have to wait at the first available siding (Bow or Ferndale if those sidings are not occupied by another train) to ensure that the other train could pass. Depending on the location of the nearest available siding, a train could feasibly wait as long as eighty minutes until the oncoming train passes. By having a siding at this location, it shortens the length (and therefore time) between sidings. This project increases capacity and reliability. The estimated construction cost of this project is $102.6 million. Bellingham GP Upgrade (rail milepost 96 to 97) The existing main line located at the Georgia Pacific plant in Bellingham will be rehabilitated. The purpose of this rehabilitation is to improve the track so that it can handle higher speeds. This improvement is needed because the current condition of the existing track does not meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standards for increased speeds. This project will result in increased passenger and freight rail speeds, which will improve service and increase capacity and reliability. The estimated construction cost of this project is $2.3 million. This project is listed in the 2003 Legislative Funding Package, but will require additional funding beyond the $200,000 allocated by the state legislature. Burlington to Bellingham HighSpeed Track (rail milepost 72.2 to 86.5) This project entails construction of fourteen miles of highspeed track and associated facilities. The purpose of the project is to allow passenger trains to operate at 110 mph, providing part of the travel time reduction needed between Seattle and Vancouver, BC to achieve WSDOT s service goal. This project is needed because the current physical condition of the track and the current track geometry in this location (due to the terrain) does not allow trains to travel at high speeds. The estimated construction cost of this project is $408.5 million. Bow to Samish Siding Extension (rail milepost 81 to 83.5) The purpose of this project is to allow passenger and freight trains to pass each other. The current siding at Samish is not long enough to accommodate most freight trains. If this siding were not extended and two trains were traveling towards this location on the same track, one of them would have to wait at the first available siding (existing Bow or Ferndale if not occupied by another train) to ensure that the other train could pass. Washington State LongRange Plan for Amtrak Cascades February 2006 Chapter Five: Amtrak Cascades Needed Infrastructure Improvements Page 59

15 flat, under a highway and onto the west shore of Samish Bay. At the south end of the Samish storage track, the hillside becomes a cliff. The railroad passes through a short rock cut with the highway passing over the outcropping about 100 feet above. A storage track, formerly a siding, extends along the east side of the line for about 3,500 feet in the small amount of flat terrain between the rock cut and Tunnel 18. The highway diverges to the east then returns and crosses about 120 feet above the railroad as it passes through Tunnel 18. The railroad follows the base of the cliff along the east shore of Samish Bay. The highway is parallel and about 160 feet above the railroad. The top of the cliff is about one thousand feet above the water, where the slope reduces and continues to the top of Chuckanut Mountain at an elevation of about 1,800 feet. After passing about a mile of beach at an elevation just above high tide level, the line begins to climb the face of the cliff, gaining about sixty feet in elevation, turning a short distance east of the shoreline, and passing through narrow rock cuts. The slope along the east side of the line diminishes to steep hillside and there are several points of land extending west of the line, separating Samish Bay from Chuckanut Bay. In this area, the line passes through two tunnels. The line returns to the shoreline along Chuckanut Bay and the slope of the adjoining hillside increases to again become cliffs. The adjacent highway is about 200 feet above the track. Just south of South Bellingham, the line turns toward the west, crosses Chuckanut Bay on a 2,000foot causeway and 200foot bridge, passes through a 750foot tunnel, crosses a short causeway and passes through a rock cut, and follows the east shoreline of Bellingham Bay to South Bellingham. South Bellingham (Distance 280 Rail Milepost 93) A 6,300foot CTC siding extends along the west side of the line north of the tunnel and rock cut. The useful length is about 5,200 feet because of street crossings at the north end of the siding. The passenger station is located east of the main track at the north side of the siding. There is a short platform along the siding for occasional use if a train cannot stop at the main track platform. The Alaska Marine Highway ferry terminal is located adjacent to the track on the west side, across from the station. Just north of the station and north end of the siding, the line crosses a timber trestle across a small bay at the outlet of Padden Creek and continues to follow the east coastline of Bellingham Bay. There is a commercial boat manufacturer on the east side of the line that moves boats across the line to and from the bay at a private crossing on the north shore February 2006 Page B36 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Capital Plan Appendix B: Description of Current Rail Line

16 of the creek. The slope of the hillside increases to a bluff along the east side of the line. The shoreline is historic commercial waterfront that is now parkland. Bellingham (Distance 283 Rail Milepost 97 to Rail Milepost 95=Rail Milepost 96) The bluff on the east side of the line diverges away from the track and reduces to a moderate slope near rail milepost Between rail milepost 96.7 and rail milepost 97, Georgia Pacific Pulp and Paper Plant industrial facilities are located close to both sides of the main track, including tank car unloading facilities and a closeclearance driveway for heavy trucks. There is generally a guard rail between the driveway and the main track, but at one point it is possible for trucks to foul the main track while backing into or pulling away from a loading dock. Because of the hazards, the speed limit for all trains is twenty miles per hour. A plan for a line change to bypass the plant was developed, but the track geometry available between existing structures was poor. In 2002, Georgia Pacific closed most of the plant. The remaining functions of the plant are being evaluated. There is a possibility that the plant will close completely, or that parts of the facility that are a hazard to trains can be removed. Just north of the Georgia Pacific plant, there is commercial and industrial development along both sides of the line. There is a road immediately adjacent to the west side of the line. The industrial development is between the shoreline and the road. The former Bellingham passenger station, now a BNSF office facility, is on the east side of the tracks and is on the historic register. There is another BNSF office immediately to the north. The slope increases to a bluff along the east side of the line just north of the two BNSF buildings. There is a small yard along the west side of the main track for shipments originating and terminating in Bellingham. The road extends along the west side of the yard. At the north end of the yard, the line climbs the face of the bluff, crosses a deep ravine on a 540foot bridge, and follows the top of the bluff on the opposite side of the ravine, about eighty feet above the shoreline. The elevation increases to about 100 feet above the shoreline near rail milepost 100. An industrial spur opening north at rail milepost 99.6 leads to a cement plant that has been closed for several years. The spur is used for car storage when needed. Near rail milepost 100, the bluff has eroded to a point close to the west side of the track. A vertical motion detection system was installed to monitor earth movement and provide warning of failure of the bank. At this point the line passes just south of the south end of the runway at Bellingham International Airport. The airport boundary is 500 to 1,500 feet from the track. Amtrak Cascades Operating and Capital Plan February 2006 Appendix B: Description of Current Rail Line Page B37

17 North of the earth movement detection site, the top of the bluff diverges to the west, away from the track. There is an industry track opening north on the east side of the line near rail milepost 102. The industry, a lumber transloading facility, is located immediately adjacent to the main track. There is also an industrial track opening north on the east side of the line near rail milepost 104. Between rail milepost 104 and Ferndale, the terrain is generally wetland, Tenant State Wildlife Area, or parkland. Ferndale (Distance 292 Rail Milepost 106) The line crosses the Nooksack River on a 480foot long bridge at the east edge of the Ferndale central business district. There is a CTC siding of about 8,600foot length on the east side of the line, a double ended team track east of the siding, and a spur to the grain elevator opening north on the west side of the line. A highway, Portal Way, extends adjacent to the east side of the line between the north end of the siding and Blaine. Custer (Distance 297 Rail Milepost 111) The line passes through the rural village of Custer. There is a storage track about 6,000 feet long along the west side of the line, used for storage of cars for Cherry Point Subdivision cars. Intalco (Distance 298 Rail Milepost 112) Intalco is a junction with the Cherry Point Subdivision, which diverges to the west through a wye. There is a yard track between the legs of the wye, a yard track north of the north leg of the wye, and two yard tracks on the Cherry Point Subdivision just west of the west wye switch. The yard tracks at Intalco are used for storing and switching cars to and from the Cherry Point industrial district, five to eight miles from Intalco. Swift (Distance 302 Rail Milepost 116) There is a 8,700foot long CTC siding along the east side of the main track at Swift, and two short spur tracks, opening south, on the east and west side of the line that are used for cars being held by U.S. Customs. February 2006 Page B38 Swift was constructed as an alternative to extending the siding at Blaine (Distance 305 rail milepost 119). The Blaine siding is 6,000 feet long, but the practical capacity is only about 4,100 feet because of a road crossing near the north end of the siding. It is not practical to extend the siding to the south because of the bluff adjacent to the track on the east and the shoreline of Drayton Harbor on the west. It is possible to extend the siding north, but it would extend into Canada. Extending the Blaine siding into Canada is not physically difficult but would involve Amtrak Cascades Operating and Capital Plan Appendix B: Description of Current Rail Line

18 Bow to Samish Siding Extension The capacity of the line between Everett and New Westminster, BC is generally limited by the extreme distance and running time between sidings. In some locations, such as English, Stanwood, and Bow, the existing sidings are in the correct location to allow sufficient capacity but are too short to accommodate typical freight trains. A siding extension is sufficient in these locations. The Bow Siding was extended to about nine thousand feet to accommodate the first Seattle to Vancouver, BC Amtrak Cascades service in This siding allows freight trains to meet or be passed by the current Amtrak Cascades trains. In the existing configuration, the next location north of Bow which is available for a siding long enough to accommodate a freight train, is South Bellingham, after it has been significantly extended. The distance and running time between Bow and South Bellingham is not sufficient for the required capacity. In addition as Amtrak Cascades service is added it becomes necessary to meet Amtrak Cascades trains at or near Bow in order to fit them with the required traffic pattern between Portland, OR and Seattle. If two passenger trains must use the Bow siding to meet, it then recreates some of the initial capacity problem: a lack of places for freight trains to clear for passenger trains. To overcome these limitations, the short siding at Samish, which has not been used for meeting trains for almost forty years because of its length, is extended south to connect with the siding at Bow. Two crossovers will be constructed at the north end of the Bow siding to allow Bow to Samish to be used as one continuous siding or as two individual sidings. When used as individual sidings, a freight train may use the section at Bow to be overtaken by the two passenger trains that meet at Samish. For instances in which passenger trains are not using the Bow or Samish section of the siding to meet, opposing freight trains may use the two sidings to meet and be overtaken by one of the Amtrak Cascades trains. Bellingham Siding Extension Extending the Samish siding to allow it to accommodate a typical freight train improves the excessive single track running time between Bow and South Bellingham; however, it is also necessary to extend South Bellingham to accommodate a typical freight train. Extending the siding is difficult, but a new siding north of Bellingham does not meet the capacity requirement. It would extend the running time between meeting points (Samish and a new siding north of Bellingham) so they are similar to the current single track running time between Bow and South Bellingham, providing no capacity improvement. February 2006 Page 426 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan Chapter Four: Capital Plan

19 Two street crossings at South Bellingham, one on either side of the passenger station, prevent the use of the existing siding as part of the extended siding to accommodate a freight train. The South Bellingham siding must be extended north from the current north switch sufficiently to accommodate a typical freight train between the street crossing north of the passenger station and the north switch. The north switch of the extended siding would be located just south of the street crossing near rail milepost 97. There are three street crossings within the length of the extended siding. These crossings would require grade separation in order to allow a freight train to stop on the siding to meet the opposing traffic or be passed. Two of the street crossings are relatively easy to grade separate. The third crossing, at Boulevard Park, is more difficult. The crossing provides access to a parking lot within the park. It may be necessary to provide alternative parking and improved pedestrian access in lieu of providing a grade separation that can be used by motor vehicles. The siding extension would require that a second track be constructed through the park area. Two sidings, one extending the existing South Bellingham siding southward and a new siding extending north from the north end of Bellingham yard would also provide the required capacity; however, it would require a new or expanded tunnel at the south end of the current South Bellingham siding, a causeway and bridge crossing Chuckanut Bay, and some extensive bridge and embankment construction north of Bellingham yard. A switching lead for the north end of Bellingham yard extends between the north end of the yard and the bridge south of rail milepost 99, eliminating conflict between switching and through traffic. Ballard Bridge Speed Increase The current speed limit over the Ballard Bridge is twenty mph for all trains. This restriction is approximately half of the speed limit for trackage either side of the bridge. This poses a capacity limitation, and also excessive travel time for passenger trains. An engineering assessment of the bridge will be made and the bridge will be modified appropriately for a speed limit for Talgo trains of fortyfive mph and thirty mph for freight trains. Scott Road Station or Capacity Projects North of Brownsville This is discussed in detail in the Greater Vancouver Terminal Appendix L. Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan February 2006 Chapter Four: Capital Plan Page 427

20 Tacoma, WA to Seattle, WA Twenty through train movements between Tacoma and Seattle. The typical speed varies between thirtyfive mph and fifty mph because of power to weight ratio; Two local freight movements between Tacoma and Auburn, one between Kent and Thomas, two between South Seattle and Kent. Local freight service occupies the northward track at Orillia for three or more hours per day; Between Tukwila and Seattle, there are an additional one hundred or more movements per day including through trains operating between South Seattle or Seattle and Everett or Wenatchee, light engines moving between yards and the Interbay locomotive service facility, switching movements, and Union Pacific through trains on the shared trackage between Tukwila and Argo; and Two long distance Amtrak trains, six Sounder commuter trains, and six Amtrak Cascades trains per day. Seattle, WA to Everett, WA Thirty through train movements between Seattle and Everett; Thirty local movements between Seattle and Interbay including trains between south of Seattle and Interbay, yard switching, and locomotives moving to and from the Interbay locomotive service facility; one or more local freight movements between Everett and Mukilteo for the Boeing plant. One or more times per week the Boeing movements handle wide loads that cannot pass other rail equipment on an adjacent track; and Two long distance Amtrak trains and four Amtrak Cascades trains per day. Everett, WA to New Westminster, BC February 2006 Page 24 Two through trains per day between Everett and Burlington for movement to and from Sumas and six through freight trains between Everett and Brownsville or New Westminster, BC. There are occasional through train movements between Everett and Colebrook, which continue to Roberts Bank, a rotary coal dumper facility, or Delta port, an intermodal facility; One round trip local freight train per day between Everett and Burlington, one local freight train that works at Burlington about six hours per day then operates on the Anacortes branch, one local freight train between Everett and Bellingham, one local freight train between Bellingham and New Westminster, BC two local freight trains between Bellingham and the Cherry Point spur at Intalco, two local freight trains between New Westminster, BC and the Tilbury Island spur at Townsend; and Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan Chapter Two: Methodology

21 Two Amtrak Cascades trains between Everett and New Westminster, BC and two between Everett and Bellingham. New Westminster, BC to Vancouver, BC Forty Canadian National Railroad (CN) through freight trains per day between the Fraser River Bridge and Willingdon Junction or Vancouver, BC. Ten other freight movements use the Fraser River Bridge between Fraser River Junction and the junction at the north end of the bridge, to the Southern Railway and CN facilities in New Westminster, BC; At Vancouver, BC there are a large number of CN freight movements between the main yard and the waterfront yards. At Vancouver Junction, these movements cross the route used by passenger trains entering and leaving the Vancouver, BC station; and Two Amtrak Cascades trains per day and four nondaily passenger trains operated by VIA Canada and Rocky Mountain Rail Tours. What assumptions were used as the basis for this operations analysis? Prior to developing this (as well as the previous) operating and capital plans for the Amtrak Cascades program, a number of general and specific assumptions were made based on existing conditions along the corridor, as well as policies that were in place at the time. As mentioned previously, some of these conditions changed since the early operating plans were developed. Appendix C of this document presents: the general and specific assumptions that were used to develop the initial operating and capital plans; changes in policy and existing corridor conditions that affect these assumptions; and revised assumptions based on new conditions. What was the general methodology for this analysis? Once the existing conditions are identified and assumptions are developed, the planning method for analysis needs to be chosen. Following selection of the planning method, critical concepts need to be incorporated, allocation of responsibility needs to be clarified, and then the analysis is performed. Initial findings help lay the foundation for the iterative process between operations and infrastructure. The following discussion outlines this process. Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan February 2006 Chapter Two: Methodology Page 25

22 Table 7: Simulated Performance for 7Day Period Measure Simulation 1 Simulation 2 Simulation 3 Simulation 4 Base Case Base Case + New Service Base Case + New Service + Improvements Set 1 Base Case + New Service + Improvements Sets 1 and 2 Passenger Train Count Expedited Train Count Freight Train Count Total Train Count Passenger Train Miles 14,096 16,696 16,726 16,774 Expedited Train Miles 117, , , ,748 Freight Train Miles 195, , , ,699 Total Train Miles 327, , , ,222 Average Passenger Speed 35.6 mph 36.5 mph 36.6 mph 36.6 mph Average Expedited Speed 22.8 mph 22.7 mph 22.7 mph 22.8 mph Average Freight Speed 14.9 mph 14.6 mph 14.7 mph 14.9 mph Overall Average Speed 19.2 mph 19.7 mph 19.8 mph 19.9 mph Passenger Delay Percent 3.8% 4.7% 4.4% 4.2% Expedited Delay Percent 18.6% 18.9% 18.9% 18.2% Freight Delay Percent 33.6% 36.8% 35.6% 33.4% Overall Delay Percent 24.7% 25.6% 24.9% 23.6% Passenger Delay per minutes 6.4 minutes 6.0 minutes 5.7 minutes TM Expedited Delay per minutes 36.7 minutes 36.6 minutes 35.4 minutes TM Freight Delay per 100 TM 74.0 minutes 81.1 minutes 78.6 minutes 73.8 minutes Overall Delay per 100 TM 48.6 minutes 49.1 minutes 47.8 minutes 45.2 minutes Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 2011 Operations Simulation. Summary: In line with previous simulation efforts, this study shows that the addition of BellinghamEverett regional rail service, plus the operation of one additional Cascade round trip SeattleVancouver, will not degrade current freight performance, but instead will improve it, assuming concurrent track capacity improvements. This round of simulations confirms the validity of the improvement package, whether or not the BellinghamEverett regional rail service is established. The results do indicate minor increases in delay to passenger trains in Simulation 4 versus the base case Simulation 1. Mitigation of such delay may require operational changes or track capacity enhancements. However, as the 2008 study, this round of simulations did not test any potential increased levels of freight service in combination with the added passenger trains. These increase service levels could include in coal and grain traffic to the proposed Cherry Point export terminal. 28

23 Comment from BNSF The simulation findings were shared with BNSF. On April 1 BNSF submitted its comments on this simulation. Specifically, BNSF suggested: longer simulation warmup and cooldown periods than were assumed; different diesel exhaust flush times for the Cascade tunnels 5 ; more elevation detail track segment 6 ; and grain trains of 100 cars rather than 85 cars 7. Apart from these, BNSF indicated that it had no issues with the technical aspects of the RTC operations simulation effort. BNSF advised that its review and comment on the RTC simulation does not constitute BNSF agreement to plans to implement a regional rail service between Bellingham and Everett. BNSF explained that its traffic patterns change over time, so base line conditions will change. If the regional rail service were to materialize, BNSF said it will perform an independent operations simulation of the line to confirm system performance. Conceptual cost estimates This section discusses conceptual cost estimates for implementation of regional rail service between Bellingham and Everett. Costs are stated in 2011 dollars. Rolling Stock: As discussed elsewhere in this report, the estimated cost of a threecar DMU (diesel multiple unit) train set is $9.3 million. The service would need three sets: two for regular weekday service and the third as a spare. Accordingly, the cost for rolling stock estimated here is $27.9 million, before delivery and any applicable taxes. Stations: This study assumes two new intermediate stations at English and Maryville. Lump sum conceptual cost estimates are $2 million for the former and $3 million for the latter 8. Costs would include a platform, a small shelter, and parking. Ridership is likely to be higher at Marysville, and thus the need for parking there would be greater, triggering a higher cost. Layover Facility and Car Shop: The simulation assumed a daytime layover facility in Everett and a maintenance shop in Bellingham. Lump sum conceptual cost estimates for these support facilities are $3 million for the former and $10 million for the latter 9. Track Improvements: While this analysis included double track improvements on the Scenic Subdivision south of Everett, these do not directly pertain to regional rail service. Those track 5 Flush times are the times required to rid a tunnel of dangerous levels of diesel smoke after one train leaves and before another train enters. Flush times at Cascade Tunnel are higher for eastbound trains than for westbound trains. WSA made the appropriate changes. 6 While the WSA simulation included some elevation detail, it was not to the degree that BNSF typically includes. Where elevation really matters is on the Wenatchee leg of the Scenic Subdivision running to the Cascade Mountains. The Wenatchee leg was included in the simulation, but it was not its focus, which was between Bellingham and Everett. This is a fairly flat segment where changes in elevations are comparatively slight and not important for the analysis. 7 The key input is train length, not car number, and the assumed train length was consistent with 100car grain trains. Nevertheless, WSA corrected the car number from 85 to Based on an estimate for a similar station design quoted to Trinity Railway Express, Dallas. 9 Assumes a 7,000 square foot structure, storage tracks, a maintenance pit, a small crane and lifts. Estimate verified with Trinity Railway Express. Wheel truing would contracted for and performed elsewhere. 29

24 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study FINDINGS OF INTERIM REPORT 2 Guiding, sector, and program policies express what the State hopes to achieve through action in the passenger and freight rail system. Any proposal for state action must be evaluated for consistency with these policies. Each level of decisionmaking is guided by a separate and specific set of policy statements. At the guiding level, the policy statements are overarching and broad. They embody the State s approach to participation in the private sector rail system. The sector policies acknowledge the current primary user groups in Washington State, including ports and international trade, industry, agriculture, and passenger rail. The sector policy statements set the goals for what the State hopes to achieve for each of these groups through an efficient and costeffective rail system. The sector policies are based on the Interim Report 1 findings, which suggested that the State s economy and transportation system would benefit if current users maintain or expand their use of rail. Finally, program statements are specific, targeted statements that suggest the set of solutions that might be acceptable to the State in implementing projects or actions. A proposed project or action should be consistent with the guiding, sector, and program policies to qualify it to move forward in the benefit evaluation criteria. The benefit evaluation processes used by other states and organizations offers some guidance for a benefit evaluation process for Washington State. Several other states and organizations, including Florida, Tennessee, and FMSIB, have established methodologies by which to evaluate rail projects for public sector involvement. Development of the Washington State benefit/impact evaluation process included a review of the decisionmaking criteria, the variables used in the evaluations, and the framework for assessing each action that have been adopted by these other states. This review contributed to a consistent definition of what constitutes public benefits, provided examples of generally accepted and relatively simple approaches to measuring benefits, and gave examples of approaches that included qualitative as well as quantitative assessment methodologies. A clear finding of the review was that the process for evaluating Washington State rail actions should be relatively simple to execute and should focus on a modest number of critical benefit categories so that the results of the evaluation can be communicated easily to decisionmakers and the general public. Every project, package, or policy under consideration must be reviewed through the lens of each of the four different key stakeholder groups. This is a key feature of the benefit/impact evaluation methodology proposed for Washington State that distinguishes it from those of other states that were reviewed for this study. Every action of the State in the rail sector will affect a wide variety of stakeholders. The degree to which an action benefits other stakeholders besides the State should be an important indicator of the degree of required participation by these other parties. The action will offer benefits and disbenefits to the State, to the rail carriers (Class I and short lines), to passengers/ shippers (depending whether it is a passenger or freight rail action), and to communities in which the action will be taken or through which the rail service Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES3

25 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study will operate. Each of these four stakeholder groups will be affected in different ways by an action; therefore each must have its own set of variables by which to gauge the magnitude of the effect (either positive or negative). The variables recommended in this report were developed with the assistance of the Technical Review Panel experts assembled for this study. The benefit/impact evaluation methodology provides for a comprehensive evaluation of public benefits to the State that includes both quantitative and qualitative benefit measures. The result is summarized and then compared to benefits/impacts for other stakeholders that are measured using a simpler, more qualitative approach. Benefits to the State from a particular action are calculated using several tools, including a public benefit/cost calculator and a set of associated qualitative questions. It is a fairly robust process that considers many variables and quantitative measures. The process for assessing benefits to the passengers/shippers, railroads, and communities is much simpler, focusing on a few good measures. Evaluating a few measures focuses the methodology on those factors that are most important to other stakeholders when they consider their participation in a project/action. Taking a more qualitative approach to evaluating these measures recognizes the potential difficulties associated with obtaining proprietary data for more sophisticated quantitative measures. The methodology presented in this report needs to be refined and tested with some case studies in order to decide if it is the correct approach to take. The tools produced in this report are drafts and will be revised based on feedback and the completion of several case studies. The case studies, along with continuing discussions with the rail study team, will determine if this process is to be the final product for the WA State Rail Capacity and Needs Study. A general principle of the policies recommended in this report is that free market economics is preferred as the approach to achieving economically efficient outcomes. By economic efficiency, we mean an outcome in which the economy can achieve the highest level of net output and aggregate consumer welfare (i.e., the total benefits to all consumers is as high as it can be). There are many reasons why markets may not deliver this outcome. For example, there are cases where there is limited competition in the marketplace, consumers do not have adequate information about choices in the marketplace, government is already subsidizing one economic sector over another, or businesses do not have access to the capital they need to make profitable investments. In addition, the most economically efficient outcome is not always the most equitable, and there may be compelling political reason to give one economic sector more assistance relative to another in order to level the playing field. In all of these cases, a public role in the marketplace can be justified. In order to evaluate policies that involve government intervention in the private marketplace in a way that may appear to give preference to one sector over another, the general approach recommended by this report is to evaluate the net public benefits of government action i.e., do public benefits as defined in the benefit/cost indicator exceed public costs. Further, we have proposed a set of ES4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

26 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study Transfer of responsibility for branch line switching from the Class I railroads to local short lines wherever possible. These operating strategies will increase velocity and reduce car cycle times (generating more effective capacity) if certain infrastructure improvements are undertaken. However, they have major implications for Washington State: The benefits of longer trains cannot be realized without significant investment in supporting infrastructure. This includes lengthening sidings, building more and longer storage tracks for assembling trains in terminals and yards, and adjusting operations to account for the time it takes longer trains to clear grade crossings and entry and egress locations at terminals. In addition, the use of longer and heavier trains will mean more, and more frequent, track maintenance. Significant improvements must be made at yards and at access points from the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. While many of the terminal capacity and access issues that these ports are experiencing are independent of railroad operations (that is, the bottlenecks will exist without the shift to longer trains), they will be exacerbated by the shift to longer trains, at least as currently contemplated. For example, assembling an 8,000foot train as opposed to a 6,000foot train will require longer lead tracks; longer storage tracks; more switching time on the lead tracks to assemble the train; more time to inspect and airtest the readied train; more time to setout a badorder car if one is discovered prior to departure; and more time for the train to depart once a signal to enter the mainline is received. Long slowmoving trains may also block atgrade road crossings located near the yard for an inordinate amount of time. The inability to use the Stampede Pass corridor for intermodal trains and the growth in container trade through the ports will put increasing pressure on the northsouth I5 rail corridor. This is and will continue to degrade the performance of passenger trains in the corridor as well as UP s ability to serve its intermodal traffic over track shared with the BNSF. Ultimately, this will affect the availability of competitive rail service from the ports and their potential attractiveness to certain ocean carriers. Carload shippers who generate small volumes of cargo and who ship small numbers of carloads to many different destinations will find it harder to get service, will find the service increasingly costly, and will see their service receiving the lowest priority of all the cargo that is being moved. This change in priorities has already been felt by Washington s industrial carload shippers and Eastern Washington s agricultural shippers. Many shippers of carload traffic, even those generating high volumes, will need to reorganize their rail facilities and operations to bring them more in line with the operating models of the Class I railroad. Many customers are finding that they must change storage track configurations, change the way they build trains, and change how trains are set for pickup and drop off. In Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 13

27 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study the future, shippers on industrial leads may need to identify opportunities for thirdparty switching in order to maintain their service. Shortline traffic that does not fit the hook and haul operating strategy of the Class I railroads will find it increasingly difficult to get cars, get timely service, and get low rates, especially for small shipments. It will take more time and cost more for short lines to service their customers. This may affect the longterm financial viability of some of the short lines. In the past, short lines have often compensated by deferring expensive infrastructure maintenance, particularly on lowdensity lines. This usually compounds the problem by forcing slower train speed and less reliable services services that cannot compete effectively against trucking, especially for shorthaul shipments. Additional financial pressure on shortline railroads may affect the market share and profitability of agricultural product storage businesses. In the worst cases, the financial pressures might force businesses to relocate or close with a loss of jobs and revenue for the local communities. Longer, more frequent trains will create growing conflicts in atgrade crossings throughout the state. Given current traffic patterns, this is expected to be a significant problem along the I5 corridor. If BNSF crown cuts the Stampede Tunnel, enabling it to route more doublestack intermodal trains over this line, the high traffic flows will be felt in communities from Wenatchee to Yakima through to Kennewick, where there is increasing development. Third party operators are interested in providing shorthaul services that connect Washington exporters with the ports or other domestic markets. These services would benefit the State by decreasing truck traffic; however, given the current capacity constraints in the system, the availability of train time slots for shorthaul services is expected to be extremely limited. Railroads are using pricing to turn aside lowerprofit carload freight in favor of intermodal and coal traffic, which can be handled more costeffectively and profitably in bulk unit trains. In some markets and corridors, international intermodal traffic is squeezing out industrialcarload traffic, and even domesticintermodal traffic. Shippers, who are used to being price setters, are now price takers. This is painful change for all shippers, especially captive shippers, who are being forced to rethink their supply chains and markets. This shift is having a noticeable effect in Washington State and the PNW. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma are major gateways for intermodal traffic moving to and from the Pacific Rim. The strong growth in intermodal traffic is slowly eroding the railroads capacity to serve local Washington State and Oregon industrial and agricultural carload traffic. The railroads are rerouting traffic. As oil prices have increased, the demand for coal from the Powder River Basin has surged. The Class I railroads have been under strong pressure from electric utilities and politicians to ensure reliable deliveries of coal. The high volume of coal trains moving east out of 14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

28 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study the Powder River Basin (PRB) has made it virtually impossible to route timesensitive intermodal trains moving from PNW ports to central and southeast gateways such as Kansas City and Memphis through the near continuous flow of slowmoving coal trains. Adjusting to this, BNSF has shifted most intermodal traffic destined to locations south of Chicago to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. All intermodal traffic landing at PNW ports must now move through Chicago. Because of continuing delays in implementing much needed physical plant and infrastructure improvements in the Chicago area rail network, many trains routed through Chicago are penalized up to one to two days. The UPRR faces a similar problem. The UPRR s only eastwest corridor connecting the PNW with Midwest and Eastern destinations passes directly through the 120 to 140 trains per day (TPD) centralnebraska coal corridor. To avoid conflict with the coal trains, UPRR now routes their timesensitive intermodal traffic over their Sunset Corridor, bypassing the large volume of coal trains of the Central Corridor. These routing changes make it more difficult for the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, and Vancouver to compete with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for intermodal traffic destined for central and southcentral U.S. and East Coast markets. The remainder of this section summarizes the major problems in the rail system from the perspective of main user segments. Addressing these problems is the basis for the policies that are proposed in this report. Port and International Trade We focus here on international container trade. Bulk cargo exports face their own issues moving through the Ports of Vancouver, Kalama, and Longview as well as through Seattle and Tacoma. Those issues are discussed in a later section focus on freight rail and the agricultural sector. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma have experienced tremendous growth in container cargo over the past decade, and the forecasts presented in this study suggest the potential for this growth to continue for the next 20 years. Much of this cargo is discretionary cargo bound for the interior U.S. and points east. This highvolume, longhaul traffic is served most costeffectively by rail. The ports generate significant economic activity that benefits the State. These benefits were described in the first interim report. In the nearterm, the throughput capacity of the ports is hampered by a number of issues including railterminal capacity constraints and bottlenecks accessing the mainlines from the port terminals. The key problems are: Intermodal capacity constraints at the Port of Seattle caused by short stubended intermodal tracks; short arrival and departure tracks; short switching leads crossing busy streets atgrade; lowspeed train movements; short staging tracks; limited ability to move cars between intermodal and staging yards; and dense urban development surrounding their facilities. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 15

29 July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study Addendum to Interim Report #1 Response 2. All of the maps with the HDR logo have been reproduced in a format that is more easily readable. This is provided at the end of this addendum. Figure ES.2 was updated using a different color scheme. Comment 3. Pages ES9 and ES10, 2 nd paragraph and following two paragraphs: Replace cover with exceed ; replace are trying to with now ; replace attempting to change with changing, replace accommodate with adapt. Response 3. Edits underlined: The railroad industry is not keeping pace with demand. Railroading is one of the most capital intensive industries in the U.S. Much of the capital investment is devoted to replacing used up capacity as rail traffic places enormous wear and tear on underlying infrastructure. Railroads also spend much of their capital budgets on power and other equipment. This does not leave much left over for adding new capacity. Capacity limitations and the recent surges in demand have allowed Class I railroads to increase their rates and profits and for the first time in many years, they are earning returns that exceed their cost of capital. But even in this situation, the Class I s are being very cautious in their investment strategies. Both the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the Union Pacific (UPRR) have investment strategies that emphasize increasing velocity through the system by operations strategies first and infrastructure expansion last. They are also focusing much infrastructure investment on the highest density, most competitive, and most politically sensitive corridors (Pacific Southwest and the lines out of the coal fields of the Powder River Basin). Class I railroads are attempting to change their business model. The railroads now emphasize long haul, hubtohub or pointtopoint, service in high density corridors. This is the least operationally complex type of service, and it takes advantage of the low average cost of linehaul movements. The railroads are also changing operational practices to get more throughput from existing infrastructure. This has meant practices such as building longer trains, standardizing equipment with fewer car options, trying to get customers on industrial leads and spurs to make site improvements, and supporting transload centers and consolidation facilities. In some instances, these operational changes are working to improve productivity but in other cases they are creating new operational challenges (for example, longer trains that cannot access terminals and end up blocking mainlines and crossings). Railroads are also using pricing as a demand management tool to encourage traffic that is easiest to serve and most profitable, and to discourage traffic that is difficult to serve and least profitable. Short line railroads will continue to play an important role serving carload traffic in Washington State, but some of the most financially tenuous lines will find it difficult to offer quality of service that is necessary to retain markets. For those short lines that can adapt to the new business models of the Class I s (consolidating traffic and delivering it to the Class I s as they wish to receive it), rates will be favorable and they will see an increasing share of carload traffic coming their way. But a number of short lines in the State are not able to offer service that can meet shipper transit time and cost needs. In some cases, the 2

30 July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study Addendum to Interim Report #1 The state plan also includes longrange improvements for Amtrak Cascades services: Increase the number of trains in each direction between Seattle and Portland from 4 trains per day to 13 trains per day. Increase the number of trains in each direction between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia from one train per day to four trains per day. Reduce the oneway travel time between Seattle and Portland from 3.5 hours to 2.5 hours, reduce the oneway travel time between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia from 3.9 hours to 2.6 hours. Comment 34. Page 270, 1 st full paragraph. ( fairly expensive longterm investment program) What are you trying to say? Response 34. Edits underlined: Cost to Reach Critical Performance/Ridership Levels on the Intercity Service Is Substantial and the Nature of Benefits Is Complex. Ever since the Washington State rail program was initiated, it has been planned under the assumption that certain performance levels had to be achieved to attract and retain ridership. The operations of the freight railroads (more specifically the BNSF) are taken as a given in evaluating operational performance of the passenger services. This means that if bottlenecks exist in the passenger corridor as a result of increased traffic and a particular mode of operations, these bottlenecks must be eliminated in order to maintain service levels. Though several major bottlenecks in the freight system have been identified (such as Stevens pass and Stampede pass), it is not clear when (or how) these capitalintensive improvements may be achieved. This uncertainty regarding BNSF operations means that some assumptions will have to be made in planning the passenger service. The objective of passenger investment should be to achieve a high level of performance and to ensure no change in freightrail utility. This generally results in a very expensive longterm investment program that includes such items as the improvements to the mountain passes. The WSDOT passenger rail program evaluates the costs and benefits of this program by considering the direct benefits of the passenger rail program to the State and passengers, including crossmodal impacts (e.g., reduction of highway congestion). However, it does not attempt to calculate freightrail benefits. It also does not directly address how to compare the benefits and costs of passenger rail investments with nonrail alternatives especially to the degree that these alternative modal projects may include embedded subsidies for initial capital investment. Each of these issues suggests some of the complexity of evaluating costs and benefits of passenger rail projects in joint operations corridors. The approach will likely need to be expanded and further refined as part of a policy framework that is meant to consider all public and private costs and benefits and their allocation. 13

31 July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study Addendum to Interim Report #1 Response 37. This is a potential policy option that will be analyzed later in the study. Comment 38. Page 44, after 1 st bullet. Add GMA statutes change to encourage aggregating ctrs. Response 38. This is a potential policy option that will be analyzed later in the study. Comment 39. Page 45, 2 nd full paragraph. Replace programs/policies with strategies. Response 39. Edits underlined: The types of strategies that would support this policy objective could include: Continued and expanded state sponsorship of intercity passenger services. Focused investment to eliminate highpriority bottlenecks in shared freight/ passenger rail corridors. These investments should be made in partnership with the Class I railroads and a system of allocating costs between the public and private sectors that prices capacity improvements in relation to the value to each user should be developed. State purchase of new rightofway or leasing of passengerexclusive rightofway within existing freight rightofway to separate passenger and freight operations. Develop a rigorous analytical approach to evaluating all benefits of passenger rail investments, including an approach to evaluating freightrail benefit that has buy in from the freight railroads. Comments to Appendix: A Closer Look at Washington State Rail Users Comment 40. Page A6, 1 st paragraph. (Pertaining to Washington State projected container port cargo volumes of 7.3 million TEU by 2025) The numbers in the first item have appeared elsewhere, but I thought the BNSF was projecting much larger numbers 50 million on west coast, with perhaps 10 million at POT alone. Response 40. No data source is readily available to address this. Comment 41. Page A47, last paragraph. cited as a success by the railroads. I would add the underlined part because I think there are lots of lumber shippers who don t agree. This raises the other question about service quality shippers of all stripes are complaining about service and we acknowledge that in places. Should we address it directly what can the state do about service quality? E.g., help improve velocity, capacity, ombudsman role for smaller shippers etc? Response 41. Edits underlined: The issues and opportunities for the Lumber and Wood Products sector are similar to those of the manufacturing and 16

32 Bellingham Siding Extension UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL I. EARTHWORK 1. Embankment CY $20 0 $0 2. Excavation CY $10 0 $0 3. Rock Excavation CY $50 0 $0 4. General* CY $ $1,519,056 II. TRACK 1. Track Construction a. New Track TF $ $1,953,072 b. Rehab Track TF $ $611, Turnouts a. #9's Each $100,000 0 $0 b. #11's Each $110,000 1 $110,000 c. #15's Each $135,000 0 $0 d. #20's Each $160,000 2 $320,000 f. #33's Each $360,000 0 $0 3. Crossovers b. #11's Each $220,000 1 $220,000 c. #15's Each $270,000 0 $0 d. #20's Each $320,000 0 $0 f. #33's Each $720,000 0 $0 4. Bridges a. MP ' Wood Pile Trestle Bridge TF $8, $1,520, Culvert Crossings a. Major Culverts (>36" Diameter) LF $600 0 $0 b. Minor Culverts (<36" Diameter) LF $ $18, Other Drainage LS $0 0 $0 III. ROADWAY 1. Roadway Construction SY $60 0 $0 2. AtGrade Crossing a. MP Private Road Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $ $15, Crossing Approaches SY $ $13,125 b. MP Private Road Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $500 0 $0 2. Crossing Approaches SY $75 0 $0 c. MP Pine Street Grade Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $500 0 $0 2. Crossing Approaches SY $75 0 $0 d. MP Public Grade Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $500 0 $0 2. Crossing Approaches SY $75 0 $0 e. MP Public Grade Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $ $60, Crossing Approaches SY $ $26, GradeSeparation Crossing a. Bridge SF $ $1,800,000 b. Roadway (earthwork & paving) SY $ $33,333 c. Misc. (nontypical per project) LS $1 0 $0 4. Crossing Signals a. Upgrade Signal Barrier Gates Each $200,000 1 $200,000 b. New Signal Each $250,000 1 $250,000 IV. RR SIGNALS a. Per P.O. T.O. Each $250,000 2 $500,000 b. Per Mile Mile $750, $5,850,000 V. UTILITY RELOCATION/ADJUSTMENT 1. Transmission Lines LS $1 0 $0

33 2. Fiber Optic Lines LF $95 0 $0 3. Miscellaneous LS $1,000,000 0 $0 VI. CONTINGENCIES (30%) LS 0 $4,505,778 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $19,525,038 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION (20%) LS 0 $3,905,008 CONSTRUCTION & MITIGATION SUBTOTAL $23,430,046 VIII. ENGINEERING/ADMINISTRATION (7%) LS 0 $1,366,753 IX. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (6%) LS 0 $1,171,502 X. RIGHT OF WAY ACRE $250,000 3 $750,000 XI. TAX (8.2%) 0 $1,601,053 TOTAL $28,319,354 Assumptions: Track Miles Rehab Exist Siding from MP to $ 6,064,102 / mile New Siding from MP to MP New Mainline from MP to MP Rehab Existing Siding from MP 94.81to Rehab Siding from MP to MP *General Excavation Includes a fill section of 5' x 25' for 75% of the time and a cut section of 10' x 25' for 25% of the time

34 Bellingham Siding Extension (MP 93.5 MP 98.6) UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COMMENTS EARTHWORK Clear & Grub AC $4,000 $ Common Excavation CY $10 $ Rock Excavation CY $ $ 26,400,000 Assume continuous 10' W x10' H section from MP 93.8 MP 94.8 Embankment CY $20 $ General Excavation * CY $ $ 1,519,056 Subballast CY $30 $ Erosion Controls LS $0 $ Seeding AC $2,500 $ Place Topsoil CY $25 $ Tunnel MI $0 $ $ $ TRACK Track Construction New Track TF $ $ 2,025,408 Rehab Track TF $ $ 1,019,040 Yard Track TF $125 $ Lineover Track TF $25 $ $ Track/Turnout Removal/Relocation Remove Existing Track TF $10 $ Relocate Existing Track TF $100 $ Remove Existing Turnout EA $5,000 2 $ 10,000 Relocate Existing Turnout EA $35,000 $ Remove Existing Crossover EA $10,000 $ Relocate Existing Crossover EA $70,000 $ $ Turnouts Split Point Derail EA $45,000 $ #9 EA $110,000 $ #11 EA $120,000 3 $ 360,000 #15 EA $142,000 $ #20 EA $168,000 1 $ 168,000 #24 EA $178,000 $ #33 EA $360,000 $ #48 EA $500,000 $ Crossovers #9 EA $230,000 $ #11 EA $250,000 0 $ #15 EA $285,000 $ #20 EA $336,000 $ #24 EA $355,000 $ #33 EA $730,000 $ #48 EA $1,010,000 $ Bridges < 32' PRCT TF $5, $ 960,000 MP WPT; MP ' PT 32 45' PRCT TF $6, $ 3,211,000 MP ' CTG 4580' IB TF $9,000 $ 80160' DPG TF $20, $ 1,920,000 MP ' DPG, PT 80160' TPG TF $20,000 $ > 160' TRT TF $30,000 $ Remove Existing Bridge TF $500 $ $ $ Culvert Crossings Major Culverts (> 36" Diameter) LF $600 $ Minor Culverts (< 36" Diameter) LF $ $ 18,000 $ Other Drainage LS $0 $ Retaining Walls C.I.P. SF $75 $ Soldier Pile < 20' SF $75 $ Soldier Pile w/ Tie Back > 20' SF $100 $ Soil Nail SF $55 $ $ Station Platform LS $2,500,000 $ $ $ ROADWAY Roadway Construction SY $60 $ AtGrade Crossing Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $ $ 216,000 MP Private Rd.ºº; MP Bear Urban Major Crossing Approaches SY $75 $ Memorial Rd.º; MP Laurel Urban Minor Crossing Approaches SY $ $ 118,125 Georgia PCº; MP 97.02º; MP 97.16ºº Rural Major Crossing Approaches SY $75 $ Rural Minor Crossing Approaches SY $75 $

35 Bellingham Siding Extension (MP 93.5 MP 98.6) UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COMMENTS Close Grade Crossing EA 3 $ MP 94.24, MP 96.24, MP GradeSeparation Crossing Bridge SF $ $ 7,500,000 Three new OHBR (MP Roadway (earthwork & paving) SY $ $ 570,000 Boulevard Park access road, MP MSE Wall SF $40 $ Pine St., MP Cornwall St.) Embankment (fill) CY $ $ 1,422,500 Misc. (nontypical per project) LS $1 $ $ Crossing Signals Upgrade Signal Barrier Gates EA $200,000 3 $ 600,000 º Upgraded signals New Signal EA $250,000 2 $ 500,000 ºº New signals $ RR SIGNALS Per P.O. T.O. EA $250,000 2 $ 500, Miles of New Siding & 4.1 Miles of Per Mile MI $750, $ 5,850,000 CTC on ML Electric Locks EA $25,000 $ $ UTILITY RELOCATION/ADJUSTMENT Transmission Lines LS $1 $ Fiber Optic Lines LF $95 $ Miscellaneous LS $1 $ $ CONTINGENCIES (30%) LS 30% $ 16,466,139 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ 71,353,268 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION (20%) LS 20% $ 14,270,654 Wetland Compensation AC $0 $ SUBTOTAL $ 85,623,921 ENGINEERING/ADMINISTRATION (7%) LS 7% $ 4,994,729 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (6%) LS 6% $ 4,281,196 RIGHT OF WAY Undeveloped AC $20, $ 309,091 Buy 50' ROW from MP 93.5 MP 98.6; split equally between Undeveloped and Residential AC $100, $ 1,545,455 Residential items Commercial AC $250,000 $ Industrial AC $350,000 $ $ TAX (8.2%) 8.2% $ 5,850,968 TOTAL $ 102,605,359 Assumptions: Track Miles Rehab Existing Siding (MP 92.2 to MP 93.56) 1.36 New Siding (MP to MP 96.7) 2.14 New Mainline (MP 96.1 to MP 96.7) 0.60 Rehab Existing Siding (MP to MP 96.2) 0.39 Rehab Existing Siding (MP 96.7 to MP 96.88) $21,971,169 / mile * General Excavation includes a fill section of 5' x 25' for 75% of the time and a cut section of 10' x 25' for 25% of the time

36 POTENTIAL LOCAL DIRECT EFFECTS OF INCREASED COAL TRAIN TRAFFIC ON BNSF RAILWAY THROUGH BELLINGHAM Prepared for COMMUNITYWISE BELLINGHAM by January

37 Among land transporta on modes, railroads have unique characteris cs that affect how they relate to their environment. An understanding of the environmental effect of railroads requires an understanding of these fundamental characteris cs. A specific method for the discussion of railroad opera on, and specific technical language, has been developed because of the unique nature of the characteris cs. Railroad Characteristics TRACK: Basic Elements The most obvious characteris c is the track. A train follows a narrowly defined path. The engineer ( operator/driver of a train) does not steer. The locomo ves that pull and/or push the train follow the track as do all of the freight or passenger cars in the train. The track allows trains to operate in a space that is not substan ally larger than the train. Trains do not require guard rails along curves or jersey barriers between adjacent tracks. Therefore, a railroad can have a rela vely modest property requirement. A train stays on the track because of the shape of the wheels. Wheels are tapered, smaller diameter toward the outside edge, and have a flange that extends below the top of the rail. The flange generally does not touch the rail. Except on sharp curves and when moving through a turnout, the conical shape of the wheels is sufficient to keep the wheels appropriately aligned on the rail. RAILS: Made of steel and generally weighing between 38 and 45 pounds for a onefoot length, supports and guides the wheels of trains. DRAINAGE: Generally in the form of ditches along the track, is required to keep water from accumulating in the ballast or in the subgrade earth. Accumulated water will cause track movement under trains and failure of the subgrade to support the weight of the trains. TAPERED AND FLANGED STEEL WHEELS O ROUNDEDTOP RAIL Because the train merely follows the track and the engineer does not steer, a train cannot swerve to avoid an obstruc on. Even when there are two or more parallel tracks, a train cannot merely change lanes to avoid another train. Loca ons at which trains can change tracks, a special configura on called a turnout must be planned in advance and constructed for the purpose. SUBGRADE: Compacted earth, supports the track. TIES: Generally wood or concrete about 9 feet long 9 inches wide and 7 inches deep, support the rails and keep them stationary and in the correct alignment. BALLAST: Crushed rock, keeps the track stationary and in the correct alignment. TURNOUTS This section of a turnout is known as the SWITCH or the POINTS. The points pivot at one end and taper to a point at the other. The tapered end fits tightly against the stock rail to guide the wheels. Tracks used by trains to move along the line at normal speed are main tracks. Trains can move in either direc on on a main track. If traffic is If this is a manuallyoperated switch, a levertype rela vely light, the railroad may use only a single main track (single device known as a SWITCH STAND is mounted track) along all or a por on of a route. A siding is a track constructed here. Moving the lever pulls or pushes on the parallel to the main track and connected to the main track by turnouts operating rod to move the switch points. at the ends. A siding is used for one train to leave the main track to If this is a poweroperated switch such as those used at a CTC control location, the electric motor, allow another train to move by, either mee ng (opposing direc on) called a SWITCH MACHINE, that moves the or passing (overtaking in the same direc on). A siding must be long operating rod is mounted here. enough to accommodate the longest train that will need to leave the main track to yield to another train. Other tracks, generally called industry or yard tracks, are used to store or maintain railroad engines and cars or to provide freight service to business. The part of the wheel that is in contact with the rail is about the size of a dime. Smooth steel wheels rolling on a steel rail present very li le resistance to mo on. The small contact area is responsible for only a small amount of fric on. The wheel does not deform under the weight or in response to a turn as a rubber re does. This also limits the resistance to 2

38 SIGNALS NO SIGNAL SYSTEM: Train speed is limited to the speed at which the train can be stopped within sight distance. To allow increased speed, the engineer must be notified that the track ahead is clear of trains for at least the distance required for stopping at the desired speed. AUTOMATIC BLOCK SIGNAL SYSTEM: Signals spaced at approximately stopping distance, using electric current in the track to sense the presence of trains, tell the engineer the condition between that signal and the next, extending the engineer s sight distance and allowing increased speed. 3 mo on. Therefore, the power required to move the lading or passengers is rela vely modest. A 40 horsepower Volkswagen Beetle of the 1960s could a ain a speed of about 70 mph on a flat road. To a ain that speed in the Beetle with steel wheels on steel rails, a large lawnmower engine would suffice. With its original engine, the Beetle could pull 40 other Beetles at about 40 mph with steel wheels on steel rails. It could also pull 13 large SUVs at the same speed. It could pull a 25 ton trailer at close to 60 mph. Modest power requirements provide a great advantage in fuel consump on and the associated emissions. To take advantage of the low fric on fixed guideway characteris cs of rail vehicles, they are much larger than highway vehicles. The size and weight affects the speed at which they can nego ate curves. The ease of movement on steel rails presents two difficul es. The limited fric on makes climbing grades and stopping difficult. Railroad grades must be gentle compared to highway grades. A grade considered moderate for a highway is extreme for a railroad. If the amount of force that the brakes exert on the wheels exceeds the small amount of fric on between the wheels and the track, the wheels will

39 merely slide on the rail. Opera ng a train is like driving on ice except that the train will not slide off of the desired course. The stopping distance of a train is, at commercially viable speeds, much longer than the engineer s range of vision. A system of detec ng the presence of trains (and perhaps other hazards), called a signal system, is needed to virtually extend the engineer s sight distance. Signals along the track, looking similar to traffic signals at intersec ons but func oning differently, tell the train engineer if the track is occupied at a point ahead that is eyond stopping distance. The signal system electronically divides the track into segments called blocks. There is a signal at the entrance to each block. It indicates the condi on of the immediate block (occupied / not occupied) and the condi on of one or more blocks beyond the immediate block (proceedno restric on, prepare to stop at the next signal or second signal, proceed at a speed specified by the signal). Because the track steers the train, changing tracks at a turnout requires opera on of the movable part of the turnout. The movable part may be manually operated, requiring the train to stop, and a crew member to get off and operate the movable part of the turnout. Alterna vely, the movable part of the turnout may be operated by a motor, remotely controlled from a distant loca on. When the turnouts are remotely controlled, typically called Centralized Traffic Control (CTC), signals serve the dual purpose of showing whether the track ahead is clear of other trains and convey authority to occupy the track ahead and may tell the train engineer what route the train will take through the turnout(s) just beyond the signal. Safety MAIN TRACK SIDING Railroads, because they are engaged in interstate commerce, are regulated by the US government, specifically the Federal Railroad Administra on of the Department of Transporta on. The Staggers Act of 1980 deregulated the railaroad industry, but only the economic and business aspect regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Safety regula ons and enforcement moved from ICC to FRA.The federal regula ons that apply to railroads are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regula ons part They apply to virtually every aspect of railroad opera on. 49 CFR is divided into groups that apply to specific subjects: CTC INTERMEDIATE SIGNALS WORK AUTOMATICALLY TO SHOW CONDITION OF THE TRACK AHEAD SIDING MAIN TRACK CONTROLLED SIGNALS ARE USED TO AUTHORIZE TRAINS TO USE A SEGMENT OF TRACK. THEY ARE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONTROLLED SWITCHES TO MANAGE TRAFFIC AND THE USE OF TRACKS. THEY NORMALLY DISPLAY STOP. WHEN THEY ARE SET TO AUTHORIZE A TRAIN TO USE THE TRACK SECTION THEY BECOME AUTOMATIC SIGNALS THAT SHOW THE CONIDITON OF THE TRACK AHEAD. 4

40 Part Subject Part Subject Part Subject 200 Passenger service rules of prac ce 222 Use of locomo ve horns at public highway rail grade crossings 207 Railroad police officers 223 Safety glazing standards locomo ves, passenger cars, and cabooses 209 Safety enforcement procedures 224 Reflectoria on of rail freight rolling stock 210 Noise emission 225 Railroad accidents/incidents: reports, classifica on, and inves ga on Bridge safety standards 238 Passenger equipment safety standards 239 Passenger train emergency preparedness 240 Qualifica on and cer fica on of locomo ve engineers 211 Rules of Prac ce 227 Occupa onal noise exposure 241 US loca on of dispatching of railroads in US 212 State safety par cipa on 228 Hours of service 242 Qualifica on and cer fica on of conductors 213 Track safety standards 229 Locomo ve safety standards 244 Safety integr on plans governing consilida ons, mergers, or acquisi ons of control 214 Workplace safety 230 Steam locomo ve inspec on and maintenance standards 250 Trustees of railroads in reorganiza on 215 Freight car safety standards 231 Safety appliance standards 256 Financial assistance for passenger terminals 216 Special no ce and emergency order procedures 232 Freight brake safety standards 260 Loans and loan guarantees under the rialroad rehabilita on and improvement financing program 217 Opera ng rules 233 Signal systems repor ng 261 Credit assistance for surface transportatoin projects 218 Opera ng prac ces 234 Grade crossing signals 262 Capital grnts for rail line relocaton and improvement 219 Control of alcohol and drug use 235 Discon nuance or material modifica on of a signal system 220 Communica ons 236 Installa on, inspec on, maintenance, and repair of signal and train control systems 221 Rear end marking device 266 Assistance to states for local rail service 268 Magne c levita on technology deployment The safety standards are quite detailed. For example, Part 213, Track Safety Standards divides track condi on into several classes. a maximum freight train and passenger train speed is assigned to each class. Measurements and condi on are specified for track componentswith tolerances specified for each class of track. For some components and condi ons, specified measurements are as small as 1/4 inch. The regula ons specify the frequency of track inspec on and the qualifica ons of the person inspec ng the track. When a defect is found, including any of the specified measurements being out of the tolernce for the track speed limit, train speeds must be reduced by temporary speed restric on to the maximum allowed speed for the class of track that current condi on meets. The speed limit may only be restored to the normal speed a er the track has been brought back into the standard for that class of track. The regula ons also provide a mathema cal formula for determining the maximum allowed speed through curves, based upon the sharpness of the curve (radius) and the amount of supereleva on (banking). Similarly, the regula ons contain detailed specifica ons for the condi on of locomo ves, freight cars, and passenger cars. FRA safety inspectors regularly inspect track, signals, cars, and locomo ves for compliance with the regula ons. The regula ons also specify an extensive set of opera ng procedures for the use of the locomo ve horn at highway grade

41 crossings, the tes ng and opera on of the air brake system of a train, and general opera ng prac ces. The opera ng prac ces and rules for each railroad are contained in rulebooks, metables, and other documents. The prac ces must be approved by FRA. The regula ons provide specific procedures and standards for the cer fica on (licensing) of locomo ve engineers and train conductors. Employees are required to pass a biennial examina on on the rules and procedures. The regula ons require periodic on the job tes ng by railroad management staff in addi on to the biennial wri en examina ons. Tes ng and examina on records must be maintained for periodic review by FRA safety inspectors. FRA inspectors also preiodically perform on the job tes ng of employees in addi on to the tes ng conducted by railroad management staff. Railroad cars, freight or passenger, receive a thorough mechanical inspec on at each terminal where cars are assembled into trains or trains are broken apart into individual cars for furtherance or delivery. In addi on, all employees along the line are required to visually inspect trains as they pass. Electronic detectors spaced periodically along the line inspec ng bearings and wheels for defects and detec ng objects dragging along the track from the bo omsof cars. when defects are found by electronic detector or visual inspec on, the train is no fied by radio to stop. The Language of Railroad Operation. The loca on of and need for railroad infrastructure is demonstrated using a traffic (stringline) diagram. A stringline diagram is a medistance chart that demonstrates the loca on of trains at any point in me. It is necessary to understand and be comfortable with reading stringline diagrams in order to understand railroad infrastructure requirements. Capacity Railroad infrastructure requirements are determined in terms of capacity. Capacity is not an absolute quan ty. It is dependent upon the speed of the trains, the rela ve speed of one train to another, the length of the trains, and the specific combina on of trains that will be operated (e.g., speed, length, and me sensi vity). At any me, a train must have exclusive occupancy of the track on which is it located as well as the track in front of the train that is within stopping distance. Thus, it may be necessary for a train to have exclusive right to several miles of track at any me. On main lines, the 11:00 10: :00 STATION E PAST 2 Steeper slope of line is lower speed. Less distance traveled per hour. FUTURE AT 09:45 STATION D Train Path Time Train 2 is here approaching C Distance STATION C Train 1 waiting at B for train 2. Vertical line shows no movement during the passage of time 6 STATION B Train Path 1 STATION A 11:00 10: :00 Time STATION E 11:00 10: :00 Time STATION E Trains 1 and 2 will meet here. If this is single track, train 1 must wait at B for Train 2 ot Train 2 must wait at C for Train 1. When used in capacity study, this demonstrates that a siding constructed at this point will eliminate the delay. 2 Distance Train Path FUTURE AT 09:45 PAST Direction of rising slope is direction of movement Train 2 is here approaching C STATION D FUTURE AT 09:45 PAST 2 Two main tracks STATION D STATION C STATION C Train Path STATION B 1 Train 1 is here passing B STATION B 1 The diagram may include a schematic diagram of the track arrangement STATION A STATION A Single track and sidings

42 signal system determines the amount of track ahead of the train that the train must occupy. On a single track line, a train must occupy the segment of line between sidings exclusively as well. Capacity is generally not uniformly distributed along the line. The distance between signals may vary or the signals may be spaced uniformly but the speed limit varies. Sidings may be located at different intervals or the speed limit may vary between sidings along the line. These factors must be considered in determining the adequacy of the route for proposed traffic. The capacity of the line is generally dictated by the individual segment that trains must occupy for the longest period. On a single track line, that segment is the segment between the two sidings that are the greatest travel me apart. On a line that has two or more main tracks, the capacity is generally determined by the two signals that are separated by the greatest travel me. These are the capacitylimi ng segments. The examples will demonstrate single track line capacity because the line between Evere and Bellingham is single track. Traffic on the line has reached the capacity of the line when every opportunity to operate a train through the capacity limi ng segment has been reached.the minimum me that can be achieved between two trains in the same direc on is called minimum headway. Flee ng, the opera on of several trains in one direc on on close headway, is generally not an effec ve means of capacity increase. Flee ng can cause substan al delay to trains in the opposite direc on. Flee ng trains in both direc ons is not an effec ve means of increasing capacity. Capacity can be approximated by dividing the length of a day by the travel me through the capacitylimi ng segment.thus, if the travel me through the capacitylimi ng segment is 30 minutes (onehalf hour) the capacity is 48 trains per day (24 hours divided by 1/2 hour). Practical and Theoretical Capacity The examples demonstrate theore cal capacity. That is the capacity that can be achieved by using every possible movement opportunity through the capacitylimi ng segment. That type of traffic density and the precision that is required to achieve it are not prac cal in regular operatoin. There will be some varia on in even the most precise railroad opera on (e.g., Switzerland or Germany). On a con nuing basis, a railroad can be expected to perform reliably at about half of the prac cal cpacity. The unused half of the theore cal capacity is needed for track maintenance and as a buffer when trains do not fit exactly into the fulltocapacity traffic pa ern. 00:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 Lancaster Kellogg Jerome Eastward train leaves Galloway at 0500 Irondale Hayden Galloway Fairfield EAST The next eastward train cannot leave Galloway until 0700 when the westward train arrives: minimum headway 2 hours. A westward train cannot leave Fairfield until 0600 when the eastward train arrives In this example, the siding to siding travel time is uniform for the entire length of the line 00:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 Lancaster Kellogg EAST Jerome Eastward train leaves Galloway at 0500 Irondale Egan Drew The next eastward train cannot leave Galloway until 0900 when the westward train arrives: minimum headway 4 hours. Hayden Galloway Fairfield Egan Drew Campbell A westward train cannot leave Fairfield until 0700 when the eastward train arrives In tis example, the travel time beteween Fairfi eld and Galloway is twice the travel time between other sidings. The segment between Fairfi eld and Galloway is the capacity limiting segment. 00:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 Lancaster Kellogg Jerome Irondale Hayden Galloway Fairfield EAST Fleeting trains in one direction may provide a small increase in capacity, but it is done at the expense of substantial delays to trains in the opposite direction. Egan Drew Campbell Campbell Barry Barry Barry Adams Adams Adams 7

43 Congestion Regardless of when it is desirable to operate trains, the infrastructurre will determine when trains can be operated. Conges on occurs when traffic exceeds capacity. Conges on does not end un l some me a er traffic has been reduced to less than capacity. Commercial Capacity The theory of spacing traffic evanly throughout the day in order to maximize u liza on of the infrastructure is o en not prac cal. Railroads are a business compe ng with other transporta on modes for customers. They must provide service when customers need it or customers will shop for an alterna ve. Rather than configuring traffic to the characteris cs of the infrastructure, it may be necessary to configure the characteris cs of the infrastructure to the desired traffic. This approach is typically necessary when passenger trains are part of the traffic because of their need to operate at specic mes determined by the travel needs of the public. Freight trains can also require special treatment. Bulk commodity trains operate in a conveyor beltlike manner, but trains carrying certain types of manufactured goods and packages for delivery have service requirements similar to those of passenger trains. 00:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 Lancaster Kellogg Jerome Irondale Hayden Galloway Fairfield EAST Fleeting trains in both directions may provide a small increase in capacity, but it is done at the expense of greater delays to trains in the opposite direction than result from single direction fl eeting. 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 Egan Drew Campbell Barry Adams The effect of the pending PTC installations The purpose of the PTC systems that have been mandated by the US Federal government is collision preven on. Such systems may have some effect on capacity, depending upon their design. The design of the systems is a work in progress. However, the fundamental opera on of the system is similar to that of exis ng systems. The significant difference will be that the system will enforce the speed and stoppng requirements instead of relying solely on the engineers of trains. PTC systems will probably include a display of the signals in the locomo ve cab (commonly called cab signals). Cab signals provide a reliability improvement, but no substan al capacity improvement. Some current systems actually reduce capacity because of their design. The reliability improvement is found in the con nuous informa on about condi ons ahead. Wayside signals provide informa on to the engineer only as they are passed. If the condi on ahead changes a er the train has passed a signal, the engineer will not know about it un l the next signal comes into view. If a train is closing on a slower train ahead, the train will receive a yellow signal (prepare to stop at next signal) when it is one block behind the slower train. If one second a er the following train passes the yellow signal, the leading train clears the main track at a turnout, the engineer of the following train must s ll begin stopping and not discon nue the braking un l the next signal, now displaying green, comes into view. A con nuously updated cab signal, such as will probably be included in PTC design, will no fy the engineer of the following train of the change and the discon nued need to stop immediately. The following train may proceed at normal speed and not experience the delay associated with preparing to stop. 8 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 J I H G F When trains are operated at a following time of less than minimum headway, congestion occurs. Delays continue until after traffi c entering the line has been reduced to less than capacity (less than minimum headway). E D C B A

44 PTC systems may include some type of moving block system. These systems do not divide the line into discreet segments (blocks). Electronic systems and radio are used to allow a following train to be as close as stopping distance plus a safety buffer from the train ahead. There is always a possibility that a train may stop suddenly, probably due to a derailment or defec ve equipment. For that reason, the systems will be designed to not allow the following train to be closer than stopping distance. The systems will not allow many trains to follow within a short distance, making one very long virtual train. As well, PTC systems do not affect the basic infrastructure limita ons on capacity. The distance between sidings on a single track line remain the same. PTC does not materially affect the travel me between sidings. The BNSF line between the Powder River Basin coal mines and the west coast is almost en rely a single track railroad. The supply of trains entering the line that extends between Evere and Custer is limited by the approximately 1,000 miles of single track railroad east of Evere. Adjusting the infrastructure to the traf ic In general, a single track line should be configured with the travel me between sidings as uniform as possible. This arrangement minimizes delay when traffic is at or near capacity. If traffic is heaviest during a specific period because of commercial requirements, infrastructure is configured for that traffic level. Regardless, uniform travel me between sidings provides the most efficient opera on. Base Trains 00:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 The BNSF line between Everett and Custer The adequacy of the line to accommodate traffic cannot be determined by examining an isolated segment. The line must be examined over a distance that allows considera on of the secondary consequences (e.g., a train that must be held because there is no track available for it at some distant point). That distance typically involves endpoints of junc ons or terminals that feed traffic into and accept traffic from the line being examined. For the purpose of the discussion of the BNSF line that extends through Bellingham, we will consider the line between Evere and Custer, 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 Howarth Park Broadway Delta Marysville Kruse Jct SSS English SSS Stanwood 9 SSS Mt Vernon Burlington SSS Bow Samish The capacity of the BNSF line between Everett and Custer is limited by the travel time between Bow and Ferndale (shaded). The siding at South Bellingham is not long enough to accommodate a typical freight train. In a day, 31 freight trains can operate through this segment when every movement opoortunity is used (practical capacity 15 trains). SSS South Bellingham Bellingham SSS Ferndale Custer SSS Swift SSS Blaine Bridge 69 Colebrook

45 where the proposed coal trains would leave the main line and travel on the branch line to Cherry Point. Between Evere and Bow, the average speed limit is rela vely high, the terrain is rela vely flat, and sidings are spaced at intervals of about 15 minutes. Between Bow and Ferndale, the speed limit is rela vely low, the steepest (ruling) grade on the line is located between Bellingham and Ferndale, and the siding at South Bellingham is not long enough to accommodate a typical freight train, rendering it useless for providing capacity to the line. The distance between Ferndale and Custer is short, but the capacity affected by coal trains would be limited by the low speed at which trains would leave the main track at Intalco (Custer). Traffic on the line varies with economic condi ons. Typically, there are several daily merchandise (mixture of manufactured goods and raw materials) daily, two daily Amtrak Cascades trains in either direc on, and several coal and returning empty trains each week. The coal trains are moving from Wyoming to Roberts Bank BC for export from the West Shore terminal. Base Trains 00:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 Howarth Park Broadway Delta Marysville Kruse Jct SSS English SSS Stanwood SSS Mt Vernon Burlington SSS Bow Samish SSS South Bellingham Bellingham SSS Ferndale Custer SSS Swift SSS Blaine When the current Amtrak Cascades trains are added to the diagram, the number of freight train movement opportunities are reduced to 26 (practical capacity 12 freight trains). Bridge 69 Colebrook Travel me for a freight train through the capacitylimi ng segment between Bow and Ferndale is 48 minutes. That generates a theore cal cpacity of 31 trains per day (24 hours / 0.8 hours), which is a prac cal capacity of 15 trains. Previous to the current economic downturn, normal traffic on the line would regularly reach 12 trains per day, including the four Amtrak trains. Thus, any expected increase in normal traffic, freight or passenger, would require addi onal infrastructure. Plans for additional Amtrak Cascades trains The Washington State Department of Transporta on Log Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades (2007) includes two addi onal Amtrak Cascades trains in either direc on between Sea le and Vancouver BC (a er substan al infrastructure construc on), but there is no currently projected funding for this expansion of the service. The Long Range Plan describes the addi onal infrastructure requirements for the first of the two trains (the third daily 10

46 train). Between Evere and Custer, the service will require extending the Samish siding to the south and connec ng to the siding at Bow, and extending the South Bellingham siding north from its present north end to Central Avenue. The infrastructure requirements for this train in Bri sh Columbia are substan al. There is no current plan in Washington or Bri sh Columbia to fund the required infrastructure. The Samish and South Bellingham siding extensions were calculated for those loca ons for specific reasons. The greatest capacity increase for a project is found in reducing the longest travel me between sidings and simultaneously making intersiding trvel mes as uniform as possible. Construciton that makes the travel me through the capacity limi ng segment substan ally shorter than those along the rest of the line will move the capacity limita on to another segment. Constructoin that reduces the travel me through the capacity limi ng segment to an amount that is s ll substan ally more than the travel me through other segments along the line provides insufficient gain for the expenditure. An early plan to address the Bow Ferndale segment was to construct a new siding north of Bellingham, between the Cliffside Drive and Slater Road Base Trains 00:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 Howarth Park Broadway Delta Marysville Kruse Jct SSS English SSS Stanwood crossings. This loca on provided a very small capacity increase, reducing the Bow Ferndale travel me by less than ten minutes. That small gain in capacity would have been insufficient, and costly for the benefit. The op mum locatoin for a siding to provide the required capacity would be as close as possible to half way (in travel me) between Bow and Ferndale. That loca on would have been somewhere south of Chuckanut Bay. It would have been very costly costruc on with poten ally significant environmental consequences. The resul ng intersiding travel mes would have been more than 20 minutes, s ll the longest intersiding travel mes on the line. The BowFerndale segment would have twice the capacity, but would s ll limit capacity of the line to less than the other segments. The solu on that was developed for the final plan, extending the Samish and South Bellingham sidings, provided the greatest benefit for the expenditure, would be less costly then a siding south of Chuckanut Bay, and have smaller environmental consequences than a siding south of Chuckanut Bay. 11 SSS Mt Vernon Burlington SSS Bow Samish The WSDOT long range plan for Amtrak Cascades includes extending the sidings at Samish and South Bellingham to increase capacity. These locations are necessary in order to increase capacity and maintain approximately uniform travel times between sidings. The capacity limiting segment is now between Samish and South Bellingham. The extension of the Samish and South Bellingham sidings provides a capacity of 53 freight trains per day (Theoretical 25 freight trains per day). SSS South Bellingham Bellingham SSS Ferndale Custer SSS Swift SSS Blaine Bridge 69 Colebrook

47 The infrastructure requirements described in the Long Range Plan for the fourth daily round trip are substan al. The plan includes the change from 79 mph maximum speed to 110 mph maximum speed. This change will require a substan al amount of second and third main track between Marysville and Larrabee State Park and between a point near Marine Drive and Alderwood Ave. in Bellingham and the south bank of the Fraser River in Surrey BC. There is likewise no funding plan for this infrastructure. There is a plan to redevelop the former Georgia Pacific paper mill in Bellingham. Part of the redevelopment plan includes reloca ng the BNSF main track from its current alignment through the Georgia Pacific property to south of the GP property and south of Cornwall Ave. This realignment would allow a speed increase from the current 20 mph for all trains around the curve through the GP property between Laurel Street and Central Avenue to 60 mph for Amtrak Cascades trains and 40 mph for freight trains. The increased speed reduces the amount of me that trains occupy road crossings and increases capacity by reducing the travel me between the South Bellingham siding and the Ferndale siding. Base Trains 00:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00 Howarth Park Broadway Delta Marysville Kruse Jct SSS English SSS Stanwood SSS Mt Vernon Burlington SSS Bow Samish When the current Amtrak Cascades trains and the one additional Amtrak Cascades train for which the Samish and South Bellingham siding extensions are required are added to the capacitylevel freight traffi c, 49 freight trains may be operated (24 trains at practical level). SSS South Bellingham Bellingham SSS Ferndale Custer SSS Swift SSS Blaine Bridge 69 Colebrook The segment between Bow and Ferndale is the current capacity limi ng segment between Evere and Blaine. Extending the Samish and South Bellingham sidings as required for the third daily Amtrak Cascades train and increasing the train speeds as will be provided for in the reloca on to the perimeter of the GP property will make travel mes between sidings close to uniform between Evere and Blaine, providing a smooth flow of traffic as well as increased capacity. Coal trains Railroads are common carriers. That means that they provide service to any party that has something to ship. In the days of regula on, that meant handling any shipment whether it was profitable or not. Regula on ended when such requirements caused the economic collapse of a large part of the railroad industry. Railroads s ll handle any shipments offered, but with no requirement to handle them at a loss. There remains a small degree of regula on of railroads by Surface Transpor 12

48 ta on Board. Shippers who feel that they have been treated unfairly by a railroad may file a complaint with STB for possible correc ve ac on. Railroads have no financial interest in the products they transport. Freight transport by rail is safer than freight transplort by highway. Freight transport by rail also represents the reduc on of damage to roadways by heavilyloaded trucks. Coal trains have characteris cs that make them somewhat safer than a conven onal freight train. All of the cars in the train are the same size and weight. The effect of braking ac on is uniform throughout the train. Conven onal freight trains are made up of cars of many sizes and weights. The poten al for derailment because of the differences in the cars (e.g., heavy cars following light cars or a mixture of long and short cars) requires greater cau on in accelera ng and braking the train. Coal trains also typically have locomo ves at the rear of the train, controlled by radiobased remote control from the engineer of the locomo ve at the front of the train. This arrangement facilitates the handling of the train, reducing the stress on the couplings and reducing the chance of mechanical failures. It also improves braking performance. CURRENT BNSF ALIGNMENT TO BE RELOCATED AS SHOWN IN RED FOR GP SITE REDEVELOPMENT SOUTH BELLINGHAM SIDING EXTENSION FROM WSDOT LONG RANGE PLAN FOR AMTRAK CASCADES SEPTEMBER 2007 CURRENT SAMISH SIDING CURRENT SOUTH BELLINGHAM SIDING BOWSAMISH SIDING EXTENSION FROM WSDOT LONG RANGE PLAN FOR AMTRAK CASCADES SEPTEMBER 2007 CURRENT BOW SIDING Railroads do not construct facili es that are not required. They have an extensive process to determine exactly what must 13