Several of the more uninformed critics from the Barrington area have claimed that funding any grade separation projects along the EJ&E involving the Canadian National Railway with public money amounts to some kind of “government bailout”. These statements demonstrate an extraordinary and remarkable ignorance of Federal transportation policy.
The truth here is important and deserves to be told.
In 2005, as part of the Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation known as SAFETEA-LU, Congress formally requested that the Federal Railroad Administration undertake a study of the impact of railroad grade crossing delays on emergency response vehicles.
This would seem to indicate that the 535 members of the 109th United States Congress (including Illinois Senator Dick Durbin) believed that grade crossing delays were a national problem, not a Barrington problem, and that a national or Federal solution to this problem was entirely appropriate regardless of the nationality of the railroad(s) involved.
Of course actions (and money) speak louder than words.
SAFETEA-LU continued to provide Federal funding in Section 1401 for the national highway-railway crossing safety program. SAFETEA-LU also included approximately $1 billion in individual earmarks for various grade crossing separation projects around the country.
Section 1301 of that legislation included $15 million for a grade crossing separation project involving railroads serving the Port of Virginia, and another $125 million for a massive grade crossing separation project in southern California, commonly referred to as the Alameda Corridor East Project. That project would benefit BNSF and Union Pacific, two railroads that serve the Chicago area and are based in Ft. Worth, TX and Omaha, NE respectively.
Section 9002 provided $350 million per year in grants for grade separating track that is “interfering with a community’s motor traffic vehicle flow, its quality of life or its economic development” (are CMAP and Senator Durbin listening?). SAFETEA-LU also extended and increased funding levels for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which the City of Reno, NV used to fund (or bail out?) a major grade crossing separation project in their community.
Sounds like “bailouts” were very popular in 2005.
The award for the biggest “bailout” on a per capita basis goes to our neighbors in the tiny hamlet of Elburn, IL, population 4,800. These intrepid souls convinced then Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Dennis Hastert to include a $7 million earmark in SAFETEA-LU for a grade crossing separation project in Elburn (on a line used by Union Pacific and Metra) with a total cost of $9.5 million. Now that’s my kind of Congressman!!!
However, these so-called bailouts are nothing new. Back in 1998 our neighbors in Lafayette, IN received a $22.5 million grant under the previous Federal transportation authorization bill, TEA-21, for a project that eliminated 41 grade crossings in Lafayette.
TEA-21 money was also used in Cleveland, OH, in conjunction with contributions from CSX, Norfolk Southern and the State of Ohio, to fund several grade crossing separation projects. These projects were part of a voluntary agreement by all parties under the Surface Transportation Board’s final approval for the Conrail Acquisition.
Closer to home, the Grand Avenue grade separation project in suburban Franklin Park is a good example of how these projects actually get funded. This project cost approximately $44 million with funding coming from a variety of sources including $14,000 from the Illinois Commerce Commission grade crossing protection fund and $11.5 million from a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant. There was also a $4 million grant from SAFETEA-LU secured by Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
After the completion of the project in September 2007, Peter Silvestri, board chairman of the Grand Avenue Railroad Relocation Authority, is reported to have called the underpass project “a truly great example of intergovernmental and railroad cooperation”. At the time Silvestri was also a Cook County Commissioner and Elmwood Park village president. By the way the railroads involved here were the Indiana Harbor Belt (majority owner Canadian Pacific) and that other Canadian railroad whose name escapes me at the moment.
For those readers who might be interested in what law and accepted practice (as opposed to hype and hysteria) actually provide here, this is the description the Federal Railroad Administration provided in its final report to Congress (published in 2006).
“Grade separations are generally funded by the States’ DOT and local communities. Railroads are generally not legally required to contribute. Railroads maintain the crossings and so enjoy a reduction in costs when crossings are eliminated. They also perceive a reduction in liability and risk from crossing accidents. However, these gains are minor in terms of the cost of a grade separation, so railroads are usually only a limited partner in separation projects.
Federal Highway Trust Funds can generally be used to provide partial funding of grade separations. Depending on the status of the road or highway, grade separations can be funded from accounts such as the National Highway System and the Surface Transportation Program.”
Like we said, what bailout???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I wish I knew what these uninformed critics are inhaling, because statements about "government bailouts" for underpasses defy logic.
If Canadian National were demanding grade separation to benefit their operations, or asking for government funding for this or any other aspect of the EJ&E purchase, yes, I suppose it would be plausible to use the "bailout" term.
However, CN is paying for the EJ&E acquisition and improvements entirely with private capital.
Furthermore, it is not CN but the communities who stand to gain from any grade separations, and the crossing improvement funding models rightly place the cost burden on the shoulders of those who receive the lion's share of the benefits of grade separation -- the public.
I am not surprised that these distortions pop up in discourse, but I discouraged at how easily they take root, and how few voices of reason are heard refuting them.
The irony is that CN (or any other rail carrier) could sign a trackage rights agreement with the EJ&E that would increase train traffic through Barrington tomorrow and the critics would have little recourse.
It is a certainty that CN's own operations gain little from a grade separation. So why are these members of the public expecting CN to bail them out? The mind boggles.
Post a Comment