# UP Fights Bay Area HSR



## WhoozOn1st (May 12, 2010)

Union Pacific vows to fight high-speed rail

"A letter written April 23 by Union Pacific, which runs late-night freight trains along the Caltrain corridor and south into the Central Valley, says the California High-Speed Rail Authority's revised route plans released in March are 'not acceptable.'"

"Planners can ill afford any cost increases or delays resulting from legal challenges the freight industry may bring. The $43 billion project needs to start construction by September 2012 or lose $2.25 billion in federal stimulus grants, which would be matched by state funds to total $4.5 billion."


----------



## George Harris (May 12, 2010)

This article appeared in various papers and other media forms throughout the state. There is one thing missing: The letter itself or any direct quotes from it. Therefore we do not know what it really says.

It has been well known for over a year that UP does not want to sell or share its right of way with the HSR. Whether the line will be parallel to them on its own right of way would be out of their control. Likewise, the UP can no more prevent the HSR from corring over or under them than they can prevent the state from building a new road over or under them. They can request various clearances and other features to protect them from the HSR and the HSR from them, but they cannot stop it.

As to the Caltrain corridor: Here is a copy of the agreement between Southern Pacific and the Joint Powers Board that now owns the San Francisco to San Jose Line:

www.tiller.net/stuff/caltrain_uprr_trackage_rights.pdf

Read it and judge for yourself what UP can or cannot do here.


----------



## Alice (May 13, 2010)

Typing correction to George's link: http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain_uprr...kage_rights.pdf

Another interesting document, especially in conjunction with the Trackage Rights Agreement above, is the Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for California HST as it relates to UPRR. Chapter 4

Aside: Those of you discussing liability issues will want to read Chapter 6 of the trackage agreement.

The trackage rights agreement allows the user/seller (Santa Fe) to handle intercity passenger service and freight, including to new customers, and including current and future spurs. Dispatch is to be handled by owner/buyer (CalTrain essentially, who operate commuter service), allowing for a daily daytime (10am-3pm) freight slot each direction plus whatever is needed to service freight customers during off-peak hours (midnight to 5am). Current clearances are to be maintained, plus user can get additional clearance as needed but only if it does not "materially impair or interfere" with owner's operations. The trackage rights agreement only applies from San Francisco to San Jose, with some language from San Jose to Gilroy, a total of about 80 miles, far less mainline than will be involved in an HST agreement, so I can see that UPRR would want a much different agreement for that.

The draft EIR says HST would cross over or under freight tracks. Some spurs present a conflict where HST would be constructed at grade, especially as UP will be allowed to add new customers who may need spurs. The document says design can avoid adverse impact to freight. It specifically excludes "economic changes," something that of course would concern UPRR.

George, a question: For normal real property such as land and buildings, an owner can prevent someone from building overhead or tunneling under, especially if they also hold mineral rights. The government must buy (from willing seller or through eminent domain) rights if they want to build a bridge or a tunnel across private land. Were rights originally granted for rail ROW different, or is it assumed the government would prevail should UP not cooperate?


----------



## pebbleworm (May 19, 2010)

The letter itself is at:

http://www.railpac.org/2010/05/18/up-extor...nce-are-needed/

UP is obviously playing nice, even though their "public carrier"obligations stretch back 150 years.


----------



## George Harris (May 20, 2010)

I have been trying to do a reply to Alice's post on this thread since yesterday and it will not go through. so: I will give the answer in pieces.

1. thanks for the correction.

2. The seller was Southern Paciific. Santa Fe was in no way involved. Otherwise, what you say is as given in the document.

There is really no similarity between San Francisco to San Jose and anywhere else that the HSR will be running. Therefore, the SF-SJ section's agreement could hardly be used as a precedent for any other part of the system. Even San Jose to Gilroy is different as the agreement with SP was only to run a few commuter trains.

3. The over / under crossing issue for HSR intersections with UP should be no different than it would be for a highway over / under crossing. What happens in the case of a road intersecting an uncooperative railroad, I don't know, but I have never heard of a crossing not happening for that reason. UP and anybody else has a set of standards for a road going over or under. If those are met, what can they say?

As to the paralleling issue: How can they expect to control what happens outside their own property? Admittedly, a lot of that happens in ciites, but that is called zoning and neighborhood pressure groups.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 27, 2010)

Here's the letter:


----------

