(The following editorial, "Rail plan must benefit all," appeared Sept. 11, 2009, in the Springfield, Ill., State Journal-Register.)
We are profoundly hopeful that todays Illinois high-speed rail summit in Chicago can bring about a plan in which this state can have a good shot at federal funds for a Chicago-St. Louis route without severely damaging this communitys quality of life and future economic growth.
But based on recent correspondence between Union Pacific Railroad and local officials, Union Pacific is going to need a fairly drastic attitude adjustment if that is to happen. So far, the railroads attitude has been that Springfield needs to quit complaining about its plans because our objections might jeopardize the states shot at $2 billion-plus in federal stimulus money for high-speed rail. It has been abetted in this attitude by the Illinois Department of Transportation.
Organized by IDOT, todays meeting includes just about all interests in the high-speed rail bid, from Sen. Dick Durbin to the Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern railroads to Mayor Tim Davlin and Sangamon County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter, among others. This is a meeting that should have happened late last year, as the potential for a federal stimulus package became apparent. Instead, Union Pacific got an exclusive seat at the table with IDOT and got a deal tailored to its interests.
First on the agenda at todays meeting should be a few words to Union Pacific about the meaning of the word mitigation. In the plan it favors, Union Pacific proposes building a second track along its existing line on the Third Street rail corridor. This would accommodate both a high-speed passenger line and greatly increased freight train traffic. Union Pacific says this wont be a problem for Springfield street traffic because it will mitigate things by building overpasses above the tracks. IDOT has endorsed this plan.
In the most galling example of the current plans disregard for anything but moving trains and grabbing stimulus funds, Union Pacific proposes to mitigate the Lawrence Avenue crossing with an overpass. Never mind that the Dana-Thomas House then would be dwarfed by a massive concrete bridge. Never mind that the southern view of this national architectural treasure would be lost forever. To Union Pacific, the crossing would be mitigated. (For the record, Davlin has stated that that act of mitigation would be withdrawn at the citys request if the process gets that far.)
There are nine such examples of mitigation spread along the tracks in this plan. Each would place concrete behemoths at current crossings, some to the detriment of businesses, some to residential neighborhoods. The entire plan would deal a potentially fatal blow to the nascent Mid-Illinois Medical District.
In an Aug. 28 letter to Durbin, Union Pacific threatens that if Springfield doesnt accede to its wishes on the Third Street tracks, it will give this community the worst of both worlds more freight trains without any mitigation. UP reiterates its oft-stated belief that using the 10th Street tracks instead of Third Street a plan to which it had been amenable until federal funding came into the picture is impossible.
It is entirely possible that the actions of the Springfield Group could cause the High Speed Rail Initiative between Chicago and St. Louis to fail and cause Union Pacific to withdraw from the effort, the letter states.
And walk away from a potential $2 billion-plus in government-funded rail enhancements? Really? We hope someone at todays meeting, hopefully Sen. Durbin, calls UPs bluff on this.
If Union Pacific wants to take its toys and go home, fine. Already, interests ranging from the Enos Park Neighborhood Association to local government are lining up attorneys for what promises to be a protracted legal battle if Union Pacific proceeds with its Third Street plan.
Given the intense competition across the country for high-speed rail stimulus money, were curious how this increasingly bitter squabble will play if it reaches a national stage. We dont think public opinion nationally will be any more favorable to tax dollars funding Union Pacifics mauling of a city than it was to tax dollars funding a bridge to nowhere in Alaska.
Is that how Union Pacific wants this states bid for a share of high-speed rail stimulus to be received in Washington? With so much at stake, surely a long-planned move to the 10th Street tracks shouldnt be a fatal obstacle, as Union Pacific and IDOT have portrayed it. We hope cooler heads can prevail today in Chicago and devise a plan beneficial to all involved, not just one railroad.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin and a top official with the Union Pacific Railroad clashed Wednesday over what the railroad knew about a plan to consolidate rail traffic along 10th Street and when it knew it, the State Journal Register reports.
The Union Pacific wants to lay another line alongside its existing track along Third Street and increase freight traffic as part of a high-speed passenger rail project funded with federal dollars. The city, fearing that increased traffic would divide and scar the city, wants to move trains to 10th Street, as contemplated by a 2005 study paid for by the Illinois Department of Transportation.
Senior management at Union Pacific didnt see the (10th Street) study until July of this year, Michael Payette, an assistant vice president for the railroad, told the Illinois Commerce Commission during an informational briefing. I dont believe it was distributed to the ICC, either.
But Davlin said the railroad has known about the citys wish to transfer rail traffic from downtown since the spring of 2008, when he and other city officials met with Union Pacific representatives. At the time, the railroad wanted city cooperation in upgrading tracks and crossings on Third Street.
We explained to the highest levels of Union Pacific: Were not in favor of upgrading Third Street, Davlin told commissioners. This was all in my conference room, with 15 or 16 witnesses.
After the hearing, Payette acknowledged that the city had discussed consolidation plans with the railroad.
They did talk about relocation, Payette said. We asked for the study, and it was never sent.
In an interview, Davlin said he didnt know whether the city sent the study to Union Pacific.
However, in a letter dated March 24, 2008, Davlin told a Union Pacific vice president that the city would allow temporary closure of crossings and connections to the citys storm sewer system so that the track upgrades could proceed. But Davlin also wrote that the city wanted eventually to consolidate traffic onto 10th Street, as he said had been discussed in a meeting with railroad officials 10 days earlier.
The City would oppose any investment in the UP corridor along Third Street that makes consolidation into one corridor more difficult, Davlin wrote. Based on our discussions at the meeting, we understand that the UP will commit to a future consolidation in the Tenth Street corridor if the City decides to move forward on this project.
According to the letter, last years track upgrades would allow the railroad to increase traffic on the Third Street line beginning in the summer of 2008. Davlin on Wednesday told commissioners that Union Pacific officials last year said that they had no objection to consolidating traffic on 10th Street.
More recently, minutes from a Jan. 15 meeting of the Springfield Area Transportation Study, a regional transportation planning group, show that Tom Zapler, a Union Pacific official, told local leaders the railroad wasnt against the 10th Street plan.
Zapler stated that UP is always willing to consider relocation from the Third Street corridor to the Tenth Street corridor, the meeting minutes read. The money recently spent on Third Street has no bearing on any future participation in relocation to Tenth Street.
In an Aug. 7 letter to Davlin and Sangamon County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter, John Rebensdorf, a Union Pacific vice president, wrote that the 10th Street corridor might have been a viable option as recently as a year ago, but no longer.
As he left Wednesdays hearing, Payette reiterated that the 2008 track upgrades played no role in the railroads current wish to install a parallel track through Springfield and build overpasses to allow 22 freight trains and 18 passenger trains per day to travel through the city by 2017. In any case, Payette said, the landscape changed when federal money became available for fast passenger trains.
This has been a high priority for us because of high-speed rail, Payette told the commission.
The Union Pacific and the state Department of Transportation are relying on a 2003 environmental impact statement to support their bid to obtain more than $2 billion in federal funds to build the high-speed line. But the EIS, which contemplates three round trips per day by high-speed passenger trains, doesnt address a new set of tracks that would be needed, nor does it address added freight traffic.
In an Aug. 28 letter to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Rebensdorf acknowledged that a new EIS might be needed, which could kill the project.
Frank McNeil, a former Springfield alderman, said he thinks someone will end up challenging the validity of the 2003 EIS in court if the Union Pacific doesnt agree to put trains on the 10th Street corridor.
I would bet there would be (a lawsuit), McNeil said. I hope there would be.
(This item appeared Sept. 10, 2009, in the Journal Register.)
