Chronology of the Northern Pacific & Related Land Grant Railroads
Compiled by George Draffan, Public Information Network, www.endgame.org July 24, 2001 version
Chronicles how land intended for settlers was deeded to Railroads. Even after some Railroads went bankrupt and did not provide services, they retained the land. President Lincoln was a railroad attorney and ceded more land to the railroads.
This is an important timeline.
Now we have a former rail road company (Texas Pacific Group) turned equity investment firm positioned to buy Texas's biggest power company, TXU. Public Private partnerships on transportation are nothing new for the United States. There is a rich history where the private corporations stopped providing services yet retained the wealth.
1916 There were 254,000 miles railroad in the U.S.
Railroads carry three quarters of all intercity freight
and 98 percent of all intercity passengers.
1950 There are 224,000 miles railroad in the U.S.
1959 There are 220,000 miles railroad in the U.S.
1978 Railroads carry 36 percent of total intercity freight
(trucks carry 25 percent; oil pipelines carry 23 percent).
They carry less than one percent of the passenger traffic
(autos carry 84 percent; commercial airplanes carry 12 percent).
1980 Railroads carry 38 percent of U.S. intercity freight traffic.
1980 Staggers Act deregulates railroads.
1991 There are 176,000 miles of railroad track.
Railroads haul 37.6 percent of freight traffic
THE CORPORTATIONS OWNING RAILROAD and/or Railroad acquired acreage
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
U.S. Mayors urge greater US Funding of passenger rail
By Faith Chatham - July 16, 2007
At the 75th Annual Meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, in Los Angeles, June 22-26, 2007, many resolutions were adopted. The following resolution supporting changes in Federal Transportation Policy, urges Federal lawmakers to dedicate more resources toward inter city and intra city passenger rail was one of many resolutions passed at that convention. They argue the Federal government should dedicate more resources to inter-city passenger rail since US DOT now requires cities to help finance long-distance rail. To learn more about the organization visit the US Conference of Mayors website
A NATIONAL INTERCITY RAIL POLICY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
At the 75th Annual Meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, in Los Angeles, June 22-26, 2007, many resolutions were adopted. The following resolution supporting changes in Federal Transportation Policy, urges Federal lawmakers to dedicate more resources toward inter city and intra city passenger rail was one of many resolutions passed at that convention. They argue the Federal government should dedicate more resources to inter-city passenger rail since US DOT now requires cities to help finance long-distance rail. To learn more about the organization visit the US Conference of Mayors website
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
WHEREAS, congested metropolitan highways, limited options for expanding airport capacity, continued financial deterioration of the airlines, and rising fuel prices are urgent reminders of the transportation infrastructure crisis that is jeopardizing America’s prosperity; and
WHEREAS, September 11, 2001 highlighted that our nation needs viable alternatives to air travel, and it is clear that intercity and long distance passenger rail service is that alternative; and
WHEREAS, intercity passenger rail infrastructure has been underfunded for far too long by the federal government; and
WHEREAS, in the context of increasingly complex, costly and limited alternatives to an impending transportation system crisis, intercity passenger rail provides the opportunity to add capacity to the nation’s congested aviation and highway transportation modes; and
WHEREAS, intercity passenger rail provides a more fuel-efficient transportation option thereby providing cleaner transportation alternatives and helping reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil; and
WHEREAS, Amtrak intercity passenger rail service provides cities large and small with direct economic, social and homeland security interest and is a source of civic pride; and
WHEREAS, Amtrak, America’s national passenger railroad, served a record-setting 25 million passengers last year; and WHEREAS, Amtrak is the largest commuter operator in the nation, transporting more than 60 million commuters per year directly and an additional 348 million riders yearly indirectly through agreements and/or shared operations; and
WHEREAS, for many rural Americans, Amtrak represents the only major transportation link to the rest of the country and is especially important with discontinuance of bus service throughout much of the rural United States; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The United States Conference of Mayors urges the Administration and Congress to stabilize Amtrak operations, infrastructure, and financials by appropriating Amtrak’s FY08 grant request of $1.55 billion while federal policy makers debate the immediate and long-term authorization for Amtrak; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The United States Conference of Mayors urges the Administration and Congress to establish a sustainable federal passenger rail trust fund, comparable to the highway and aviation trust funds, to provide Amtrak, states and local governments with a reliable source of capital and operating support for intercity passenger rail corridors; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The United States Conference of Mayors urges the Administration and Congress to enact tax incentives and pursue other measures to stimulate increased private sector participation to improve crossings, rail stations, and rail infrastructure; acquire rolling stock; offer commuter benefits and
transit-oriented development in support of intercity passenger rail; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The United States Conference of Mayors calls on the Administration and Congress to dedicate a portion of any proceeds from the federal issuance of bonds to fund transportation spending to an intercity passenger rail trust fund; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with the establishment of a sustainable federal passenger rail trust fund, The United States Conference of Mayors recommends to the Administration and Congress that a federal match program for intercity passenger rail corridor operations and capital be comparable to other modes of transportation, generally at 80% federal and 20% state funded, perhaps richer federal match under certain circumstances, to stimulate development where it is most needed, including encouraging intercity passenger rail-airport-transit connections and rail oriented development; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the long distance, including transcontinental passenger trains, form the basis for, and connections to, emerging federal-state supported corridors and provide an important transportation link for many rural communities and regions across the country; therefore, it is the recommendation of The United States Conference of Mayors to the Administration and Congress that the federal government maintain full responsibility for operating and capital; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The United States Conference of Mayors urges the Administration and Congress to delay enactment of long distance performance evaluations or benchmarks until the long distance infrastructure is brought into a state of good condition and numerous freight rail issues, including choke points, have been identified and solved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with the establishment of a sustainable federal passenger rail trust fund, The United States Conference of Mayors recommends to the Administration and Congress that a federal match program for Northeast Corridor operations and capital be comparable to other modes of transportation, generally at 80% federal and 20% state funded, perhaps richer federal match under certain circumstances, to stimulate development where it is most needed, including encouraging intercity passenger railairport-transit connections and rail oriented development; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The United States Conference of Mayors urges the Administration and Congress to require that the composition of the Amtrak Board of Directors include a mayor of a city selected from among mayors of cities with an interest in passenger rail, especially in light of recommendations in the
Administration’s and Amtrak’s reform proposals that states and locals share the costs of corridor and long distance passenger rail service; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The United States Conference of Mayors urges the Department of Homeland Security take financial and operational responsibility for securing intercity passenger rail operations and infrastructure.
pp. 186-187 of Resolutions
Read all resolutions
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Federal officials target 25 rail crossings for safety upgrades
About half at-grade local intersections have only 'passive' safety warnings
By RAD SALLEE - Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle - July 5, 2007
Weeks after his daughter, niece and two of their friends crashed into a train and died, Doug Moyers is readying himself for a mission: upgrading safety measures at rail crossings.
"I'm going to become an expert in this, and we're going out to save some lives," he said.
He could find himself rather busy.
CROSSINGS BY THE NUMBERS
Harris County
Crossings: 1,389
At grade: 87%
Signalized: 55%
TxDOT district*
Crossings: 2,011
At grade: 89% Signalized: 48%
Other counties
Crossings: 622
At grade: 93%
Signalized: 34%
* Harris, Montgomery, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller Counties
Source: Texas Department of Transportation
Roughly half of the nearly 1,800 at-grade, or street-level, crossings in the Houston area, like the East Archer location where the teens died June 14, have only "passive" safety devices that are not train-activated. These include "stop," "yield" or "crossing ahead" signs, pavement markings and street lighting.
There are 25 crossings in the Texas Department of Transportation's six-county Houston District that federal officials have approved for "active" signalization — flashing lights and crossing arms.
Among them:
• The East Archer Road crossing where Loral Nicole Moyers, 12, her cousin Macy Elizabeth Moyers, 14, and friends Colette Windham and Austin Davis, both 14, died when the sport utility vehicle they were in crashed into a stopped rail car June 14. The crossing near Baytown, equipped with crossbucks and pavement markings but no street lights or devices activated by the presence of a train, had been the site of four previous accidents since 1979.
The crossing, officials said, was a few months away from getting the flashing signals and gate arms, devices family members said could have prevented the teens' deaths.
• A crossing at Almeda and Almeda-Genoa in southeast Houston, according to Federal Railroad Administration records, has been the site of 15 crashes that have injured seven people since 1977, despite its flashing lights. Like the one on East Archer, it is approved to get gate arms.
• A crossing on Texas 6 in Hitchcock, also equipped with the red flashers, has been the scene of eight accidents, including one in 1987 that killed two people and injured three when an ambulance smashed into a parked rail car. It also has been approved for crossing arms.
Of the 25 area crossings approved for upgrades, work is completed on five, and the rest probably will be finished by the end of 2008, although that depends, in part, on the work schedule of the railroads, TxDOT spokeswoman Janelle Gbur said.
Four other crossings, all near downtown Houston, are recommended for closing.
In addition, TxDOT has recommended 12 other crossings in the Houston district for upgrades. If approved, these likely would be completed by late 2009, Gbur said.
At-grade crossings
Railroads consider at-grade crossings "an opportunity for something bad to happen" and applaud their elimination, Union Pacific Railroad spokesman Joe Arbona said.
TxDOT recommends about 15 crossings a year for improvements in the Houston district, ranking them with a formula that considers vehicle and train traffic, maximum train speed, types of warning devices in place and the crossing's five-year crash history.
Arbona noted that installing flashing signals at an at-grade crossing cannot guarantee safety as long as some drivers ignore the warnings.
"More than half of accidents happen at places where you have signal lights," he said.
However, a driver has to go to some trouble to crash through a crossing arm or deliberately go around it. All 25 of the approved upgrades call for gate arms.
Gbur said the number of crossings equipped annually with flashers or gate arms depends largely on the federal money available. The combined state and federal funds for Texas total about $35 million a year, and it costs about $170,000 per crossing to add the lights and arms, she said.
Closings in city
Although progress is slow, the Federal Railroad Administration is working to reduce at-grade crossings. Gbur said TxDOT must eliminate two of them for every new one that it opens.
An example is the planned closing of four at-grade crossings within a half-mile stretch of Winter Street north of Washington Avenue. Three others nearby were closed in 2005.
All of those crossings are on narrow streets lined with small, aging frame houses rapidly being replaced with upscale apartments. Four, on Holly, Johnson, Colorado and Sabine, have racked up 16 collisions, three with injuries.
Gbur said TxDOT can spend federal funds only on crossings approved through the federal evaluation process. But, she added, there is nothing to prevent a city or county from working directly with a railroad and using its own money to improve crossings.
Houston's policy
Houston Public Works spokesman Wes Johnson said the city never has paid for railroad signals or gate arms, because this has "historically been a federal and state function." Far more accidents occur where streets cross other streets, so the city focuses on those locations, he said.
"We do put up stop signs at railroad crossings," Johnson said.
And nearly all rail crossings in the city receive enough light from city street lamps for motorists to see trains, even without flashing lights, he said.
Union Pacific's Arbona said the East Archer crossing near Baytown will be upgraded with flashing lights within six months.
The crossing's crash history did not stand out among other at-grade rail crossings in the Houston area.
Moyers said residents of the unincorporated area near the Baytown city limits had asked Union Pacific for help in the past and had received some.
"They cleared some brush — the tree line used to come all the way to the road — and they painted 'Railroad Crossing' on the road itself," he said. "But there's just a 'yield' sign. And if there's nothing coming, you keep on going."
See Houston Chronicle
By RAD SALLEE - Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle - July 5, 2007
Weeks after his daughter, niece and two of their friends crashed into a train and died, Doug Moyers is readying himself for a mission: upgrading safety measures at rail crossings.
"I'm going to become an expert in this, and we're going out to save some lives," he said.
He could find himself rather busy.
CROSSINGS BY THE NUMBERS
Harris County
Crossings: 1,389
At grade: 87%
Signalized: 55%
TxDOT district*
Crossings: 2,011
At grade: 89% Signalized: 48%
Other counties
Crossings: 622
At grade: 93%
Signalized: 34%
* Harris, Montgomery, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller Counties
Source: Texas Department of Transportation
Roughly half of the nearly 1,800 at-grade, or street-level, crossings in the Houston area, like the East Archer location where the teens died June 14, have only "passive" safety devices that are not train-activated. These include "stop," "yield" or "crossing ahead" signs, pavement markings and street lighting.
There are 25 crossings in the Texas Department of Transportation's six-county Houston District that federal officials have approved for "active" signalization — flashing lights and crossing arms.
Among them:
• The East Archer Road crossing where Loral Nicole Moyers, 12, her cousin Macy Elizabeth Moyers, 14, and friends Colette Windham and Austin Davis, both 14, died when the sport utility vehicle they were in crashed into a stopped rail car June 14. The crossing near Baytown, equipped with crossbucks and pavement markings but no street lights or devices activated by the presence of a train, had been the site of four previous accidents since 1979.
The crossing, officials said, was a few months away from getting the flashing signals and gate arms, devices family members said could have prevented the teens' deaths.
• A crossing at Almeda and Almeda-Genoa in southeast Houston, according to Federal Railroad Administration records, has been the site of 15 crashes that have injured seven people since 1977, despite its flashing lights. Like the one on East Archer, it is approved to get gate arms.
• A crossing on Texas 6 in Hitchcock, also equipped with the red flashers, has been the scene of eight accidents, including one in 1987 that killed two people and injured three when an ambulance smashed into a parked rail car. It also has been approved for crossing arms.
Of the 25 area crossings approved for upgrades, work is completed on five, and the rest probably will be finished by the end of 2008, although that depends, in part, on the work schedule of the railroads, TxDOT spokeswoman Janelle Gbur said.
Four other crossings, all near downtown Houston, are recommended for closing.
In addition, TxDOT has recommended 12 other crossings in the Houston district for upgrades. If approved, these likely would be completed by late 2009, Gbur said.
At-grade crossings
Railroads consider at-grade crossings "an opportunity for something bad to happen" and applaud their elimination, Union Pacific Railroad spokesman Joe Arbona said.
TxDOT recommends about 15 crossings a year for improvements in the Houston district, ranking them with a formula that considers vehicle and train traffic, maximum train speed, types of warning devices in place and the crossing's five-year crash history.
Arbona noted that installing flashing signals at an at-grade crossing cannot guarantee safety as long as some drivers ignore the warnings.
"More than half of accidents happen at places where you have signal lights," he said.
However, a driver has to go to some trouble to crash through a crossing arm or deliberately go around it. All 25 of the approved upgrades call for gate arms.
Gbur said the number of crossings equipped annually with flashers or gate arms depends largely on the federal money available. The combined state and federal funds for Texas total about $35 million a year, and it costs about $170,000 per crossing to add the lights and arms, she said.
Closings in city
Although progress is slow, the Federal Railroad Administration is working to reduce at-grade crossings. Gbur said TxDOT must eliminate two of them for every new one that it opens.
An example is the planned closing of four at-grade crossings within a half-mile stretch of Winter Street north of Washington Avenue. Three others nearby were closed in 2005.
All of those crossings are on narrow streets lined with small, aging frame houses rapidly being replaced with upscale apartments. Four, on Holly, Johnson, Colorado and Sabine, have racked up 16 collisions, three with injuries.
Gbur said TxDOT can spend federal funds only on crossings approved through the federal evaluation process. But, she added, there is nothing to prevent a city or county from working directly with a railroad and using its own money to improve crossings.
Houston's policy
Houston Public Works spokesman Wes Johnson said the city never has paid for railroad signals or gate arms, because this has "historically been a federal and state function." Far more accidents occur where streets cross other streets, so the city focuses on those locations, he said.
"We do put up stop signs at railroad crossings," Johnson said.
And nearly all rail crossings in the city receive enough light from city street lamps for motorists to see trains, even without flashing lights, he said.
Union Pacific's Arbona said the East Archer crossing near Baytown will be upgraded with flashing lights within six months.
The crossing's crash history did not stand out among other at-grade rail crossings in the Houston area.
Moyers said residents of the unincorporated area near the Baytown city limits had asked Union Pacific for help in the past and had received some.
"They cleared some brush — the tree line used to come all the way to the road — and they painted 'Railroad Crossing' on the road itself," he said. "But there's just a 'yield' sign. And if there's nothing coming, you keep on going."
See Houston Chronicle
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Where did they get authority to spend taxpayers money on private rail infrastructure?
We gave it to them!
Todd Staples (the same guy who authored one of the most inclusive Trans Texas Corridor enabling bills, co-authored with McClendon HJR 54 which called for a Constitutional Amendment. It appeared as Proposiiton 1 on the November 8, 2005 ballot.
Ballot Language
"The constitutional amendment creating the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund and authorizing grants of money and issuance of obligations for financing the relocation, rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities."
"Enmienda constitucional que establece el fondo tejano para reubicación y mejoramiento de ferrocarriles y que autoriza subvenciones monetarias y la emisión de obligaciones para financiar la reubicación, saneamiento y expansión de instalaciones ferroviarias."
Brief Explanation
HJR 54 would create a Texas rail relocation and improvement fund in the state treasury and would authorize grants of state revenue and issuance of public debt to relocate, rehabilitate, and expand privately and publicly owned passenger and freight rail facilities and to construct railroad underpasses and overpasses.
State Wide election returns on Proposition 1 were:
RACE NAME PARTY CANVASS VOTES PERCENT
Prop. 1 Texas rail facilities funding created
IN FAVOR 1,112,718 53.77%
AGAINST 956,350 46.22%
-----------
Race Total 2,069,068
I can't remember how I voted that year. I probably voted for it. That was before I understood that it was more than just getting freight trains with toxic chemical out of the center of densely urbanized areas. Now I know that it is more about getting the taxpayers to underwrite upgrading private rail infrastructure than it is about getting dangerous chemicals away from our homes. They are relocating them into suburban neighborhoods where they will be risks. It's about improving the bottom line of rail roads.
I wish I could take back my vote. I want a do-over!
By Faith Chatham - June 21, 2007
Todd Staples (the same guy who authored one of the most inclusive Trans Texas Corridor enabling bills, co-authored with McClendon HJR 54 which called for a Constitutional Amendment. It appeared as Proposiiton 1 on the November 8, 2005 ballot.
Ballot Language
"The constitutional amendment creating the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund and authorizing grants of money and issuance of obligations for financing the relocation, rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities."
"Enmienda constitucional que establece el fondo tejano para reubicación y mejoramiento de ferrocarriles y que autoriza subvenciones monetarias y la emisión de obligaciones para financiar la reubicación, saneamiento y expansión de instalaciones ferroviarias."
Brief Explanation
HJR 54 would create a Texas rail relocation and improvement fund in the state treasury and would authorize grants of state revenue and issuance of public debt to relocate, rehabilitate, and expand privately and publicly owned passenger and freight rail facilities and to construct railroad underpasses and overpasses.
State Wide election returns on Proposition 1 were:
RACE NAME PARTY CANVASS VOTES PERCENT
Prop. 1 Texas rail facilities funding created
IN FAVOR 1,112,718 53.77%
AGAINST 956,350 46.22%
-----------
Race Total 2,069,068
I can't remember how I voted that year. I probably voted for it. That was before I understood that it was more than just getting freight trains with toxic chemical out of the center of densely urbanized areas. Now I know that it is more about getting the taxpayers to underwrite upgrading private rail infrastructure than it is about getting dangerous chemicals away from our homes. They are relocating them into suburban neighborhoods where they will be risks. It's about improving the bottom line of rail roads.
I wish I could take back my vote. I want a do-over!
Railroaded?
by Eileen Welsome - The Texas Observer - May 11th, 2007
With only a couple of weeks left in the session, lawmakers are rushing to put through legislation that eventually could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. One bill that passed the House and is pending in the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security committee is a very brief piece of legislation, HB 3747, that would allow TxDot to use money from the general fund for the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund.
The rail relocation effort is part of TxDot’s grand scheme to build the Trans-Texas Corridor, which is actually a network of super-highways that will have lanes for cars, trucks, trains, pipelines, and other infrastructure. The Legislature has not yet capitalized the rail relocation fund, which was approved by voters in 2005.
The current House appropriations bill contains a one-time payment of $150 million to TxDot, which will allow the agency to begin laying the groundwork for public-private partnerships with railroad companies and other corporations. But that’s just the beginning of what could be a flood of money from state coffers.
TxDot has identified $17.4 billion in needed rail projects across Texas. Even industry insiders have described some of these rail projects as “pure pork,” which will require huge amounts of debt and taxpayer-funded subsidies. In its analysis, the House Research Organization quoted opponents as saying,
Read other articles on Rail Relocation in the Texas Observer
With only a couple of weeks left in the session, lawmakers are rushing to put through legislation that eventually could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. One bill that passed the House and is pending in the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security committee is a very brief piece of legislation, HB 3747, that would allow TxDot to use money from the general fund for the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund.
The rail relocation effort is part of TxDot’s grand scheme to build the Trans-Texas Corridor, which is actually a network of super-highways that will have lanes for cars, trucks, trains, pipelines, and other infrastructure. The Legislature has not yet capitalized the rail relocation fund, which was approved by voters in 2005.
The current House appropriations bill contains a one-time payment of $150 million to TxDot, which will allow the agency to begin laying the groundwork for public-private partnerships with railroad companies and other corporations. But that’s just the beginning of what could be a flood of money from state coffers.
TxDot has identified $17.4 billion in needed rail projects across Texas. Even industry insiders have described some of these rail projects as “pure pork,” which will require huge amounts of debt and taxpayer-funded subsidies. In its analysis, the House Research Organization quoted opponents as saying,
”At a time when the Legislature has expressed concerns about TxDot’s decisions and funding priorities, especially those involving participation in partnerships with private enterprise, it would be unwise to allow TxDot to create its own rules for spending money and deeming eligibility of projects. The state should not spend public dollars on projects that benefit private companies, and this bill would provide no safeguard against that possibility.”
Read other articles on Rail Relocation in the Texas Observer
HNTB Crosses the Border with Rail Relocation Win
Firm to lead Union Pacific rail facilities project in Texas to Matamoros, Mexico
Release by HTNB
SAN ANTONIO - Cameron County, the southernmost tip of Texas, has selected HNTB Corporation to lead the fast-track design of Union Pacific rail facilities in Texas and Transportacion Ferroviarias Mexicana facilities across the border in Matamoros, Mexico.
The Cameron County West Railroad Relocation Project involves an estimated $22 million of construction, including approximately seven miles of relocation railway, final design of a new 2,300-foot rail bridge over the Rio Grande River, hydraulic river models and a 1.5-mile arterial roadway.
HNTB's offices in San Antonio and Houston expect to complete design by early 2005 and then provide construction administration services for the project through its completion in late 2005.
"Rail traffic passes through the core of both communities and endangers residents with more than 175 at-grade crossings and the transport of hazardous and industrial cargo through residential areas," said HNTB project director Lamberto "Bobby" Ballí. "The county and city commission feel this is the largest and most important project the area has ever undertaken."
Release by HTNB
SAN ANTONIO - Cameron County, the southernmost tip of Texas, has selected HNTB Corporation to lead the fast-track design of Union Pacific rail facilities in Texas and Transportacion Ferroviarias Mexicana facilities across the border in Matamoros, Mexico.
The Cameron County West Railroad Relocation Project involves an estimated $22 million of construction, including approximately seven miles of relocation railway, final design of a new 2,300-foot rail bridge over the Rio Grande River, hydraulic river models and a 1.5-mile arterial roadway.
HNTB's offices in San Antonio and Houston expect to complete design by early 2005 and then provide construction administration services for the project through its completion in late 2005.
"Rail traffic passes through the core of both communities and endangers residents with more than 175 at-grade crossings and the transport of hazardous and industrial cargo through residential areas," said HNTB project director Lamberto "Bobby" Ballí. "The county and city commission feel this is the largest and most important project the area has ever undertaken."
Governor signs lopsided agreement with BSNF
By Faith Chatham - June 21, 2007
The Perry administration is intent on spending taxpayers money on the railroads upgrading their privately owned and controlled infrastructure at taxpayer's expense. There are some private public partnerships with rail which make sense, especially commuter rail. However, read to the end of this memorandum and you'll see exactly how little committment BSNF is making to the citizens of Texas. They are here holding their hands out for our bucks but unwilling to invest financially in this state.
From Governor Perry's Website
READ GOVERNOR PERRY'S MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH UNION PACIFIC RAIL ROAD.
The Perry administration is intent on spending taxpayers money on the railroads upgrading their privately owned and controlled infrastructure at taxpayer's expense. There are some private public partnerships with rail which make sense, especially commuter rail. However, read to the end of this memorandum and you'll see exactly how little committment BSNF is making to the citizens of Texas. They are here holding their hands out for our bucks but unwilling to invest financially in this state.
From Governor Perry's Website
BNSF Memorandum of Understanding
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE STATE OF TEXAS ACTING THROUGH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY FOR A COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP TO ADDRESS FREIGHT RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION ISSUES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS
WHEREAS, the Governor of Texas has proposed the development of a multimodal
WHEREAS, in accordance with House Bill Number 3588, 78th Texas Legislature, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) was authorized to proceed with the development of the Trans-Texas Corridor facilities; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with House Bill Number 3588, 78th Texas Legislature, TxDOT has been authorized to acquire, finance, construct, maintain, and lease operations on state owned rail facilities in order to improve the safety and efficiency of Texas transportation systems; and
WHEREAS, in certain areas of the state, the growth of freight movements in and through the state of Texas is projected to increase in volumes that will eventually exceed the capacity of existing transportation systems in the state; and
WHEREAS, the state recognizes the essential need to promote and improve the efficiency of the multiple modes of transportation within the state, in order to facilitate the efficient movement of freight goods in and through the state of Texas; and
WHEREAS, the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) operates and performs freight rail transportation services within the state of Texas, and recognizes the important role played by TxDOT in rail transportation planning and will participate in studies to advance statewide transportation interests; and
WHEREAS, the BNSF in its cooperation with the state herein will be guided by its own internal principles as outlined in the policy document entitled "Public Private Partnerships," (Exhibit A, attached), which contains an overview as to how BNSF will consider and participate in projects such as the Trans-Texas Corridor, beneficial freight rail relocations or other rail infrastructure projects and the state of Texas is willing to work with BNSF under the guidelines in Exhibit A for projects of this nature; and
WHEREAS, the state of Texas has seen a need to improve the Texas transportation system, and the potential to include the possibility of relocating some portions of freight rail services to alternative alignments that would benefit multiple modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS, improvements in the statewide freight rail system will offer opportunities to maximize the safety of all Texans while providing increased capacity for freight; and
WHEREAS, the BNSF and the state of Texas have agreed that improvements to the Texas freight rail system will benefit the state by enabling increased freight rail efficiencies and improving services to freight customers, and encouraging additional economic development within the state;
WHEREAS, the State of Texas understands and appreciates that BNSF operates in a competitive business environment and BNSF understands and appreciates that the State of Texas intends to enter into similar Memorandums of Understanding with other transportation providers, including BNSF's competitors; and
WHEREAS, the State of Texas and BNSF agree that to the extent that any other Memoranda are executed by the State of Texas with any of BNSF's competitors, and to the extent that such Memoranda contain substantive terms that effect the competitive environment BNSF operates in, that the same or functionally similar terms will also be offered to BNSF.
NOW THEREFORE, we declare to direct our respective planning and development personnel to work in a cooperative manner to identify potential rail projects which will facilitate the safe and reliable movement of goods and people within the state of Texas, and which will benefit the transportation system of Texas and the people of the state.
By: ________________________
RICK PERRY
Governor of Texas
Date: _________________________
By: ________________________
Matthew Rose
Chairman, President and CEO
BNSF Railway Company
Date: _________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit A
Public Private Partnerships Brochure
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) will consider public-private partnerships in cases that benefit the public and ensure the interests of BNSF customers, investors and employees are protected. BNSF has successfully accomplished a number of public-private partnerships, including a partnership with several California state entities resulting in the Alameda Corridor and a partnership with various entities in Missouri and Kansas resulting in fly-over projects in Kansas City.
What are public-private partnerships?
Public-private partnerships combine the business interests of companies with the diverse goals of the local, state and federal entities who are working in the interest of the public. Cooperation between the private and public sectors may, in many cases, allow both sides to achieve their respective goals better, faster, and at lower costs.
How does BNSF approach public-private partnerships?
Public-private partnerships must be voluntary on both sides. Decisions on behalf of the public must protect the public interest and investment. BNSF's decision on whether to participate must protect our assets and the interests of our customers, shareholders and employees.
Coordinated state and federal transportation planning is necessary to ensure prudent public investments are made in the national rail network. BNSF works with local, state, federal agencies and public officials to provide whatever relevant information is needed to achieve public goals.
What factors does BNSF consider when evaluating a potential public-private partnership?
Public-private partnerships require a fact-based planning approach that:
Describes project scope;
Assesses impact on current freight traffic levels and future traffic growth;
Provides a cost-benefit analyses on an after-tax risk-adjusted basis; and
Identifies public funding sources, timing, processes and probability of obtaining funding to meet the public's timeliness objectives and achieve the public's goals.
BNSF's preliminary interest in exploring the possibilities of a public-private partnership should not be construed as a real or implied commitment by BNSF to support a project or participate either operationally or financially. BNSF's official support or concurrence of a project's benefit will follow the fact-based planning process outlined above, completion of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties, and BNSF's issuance of a formal statement of benefit and support.
What factors may lead BNSF to reject a potential public-private partnership?
Any public project cannot negatively affect BNSF's freight customers or BNSF's ability to provide them with consistent service, now or in the future.
Will BNSF consider participating financially in a potential public-private partnership?
BNSF recognizes public funding for rail projects should be commensurate with public benefits. BNSF's contributions to public-private partnerships will be commensurate with benefits derived by BNSF in comparison with other freight transportation projects competing for BNSF capital dollars.
Even though a project may produce some benefits for BNSF, it may not rank sufficiently high enough compared to other capital projects, or meet BNSF's internal capital investment or timeframe thresholds. When this occurs, BNSF would still support a project but would not provide financial participation.
READ GOVERNOR PERRY'S MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH UNION PACIFIC RAIL ROAD.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
