Big NIMBYism hits crossroads on December 31

[Dreadnaught]

As a Canadian National shareholder (and a proponent of investment in passenger railways), I've been following this for a while. Nice to see the WSJ jump on board.

But that's just me. If you bought a house/apartment near a rarely used rail line, would you protest if someone came in and tried to run many more trains along the line?

Even if one admits there is a problem with more trains like this, does the community owe it to the greater good to shut up about this?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990092492124959.html


Routing the Rails Through the Suburbs
Canadian National Plan to Avoid Inner-City Freight Bottleneck Triggers Protests

By ALEX ROTH

CHICAGO -- It seemed like a common-sense transaction when Canadian National Railway Co. signed a deal with U.S. Steel Corp. to buy a suburban rail line, seeking to reroute its freight trains around the worst railroad bottleneck in the country.

But the big Canadian rail company didn't anticipate the collision that would follow.

When wealthy neighborhoods along the line learned more trains would be rolling through their suburbs, they were suddenly up in arms, hiring lawyers and publicists to fight the plan. Some inner-city communities, plagued for decades by the ever-present rumbling of rail cars and locomotives, hailed the proposal as a way to ease congestion in their neighborhoods.

Petitions were signed. State politicians picked sides. Then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama wrote a letter expressing concerns about the impact of more trains in suburban communities; Chicago Mayor Richard Daley urged authorities to approve the deal.

In this 2001 photo, a Canadian National freight train idles near Rosemont, Ill., as it waits for an approach signal.

Now all sides are waiting for a decision from the federal Surface Transportation Board, three presidential appointees who must approve all major railroad mergers and acquisitions, based on a variety of factors including environmental and competitive impacts. Citing the public controversy, U.S. Steel already has said if the deal -- signed in late 2007 -- isn't finalized by Dec. 31, it won't extend the agreement into 2009. A spokesman for the transportation board declined to comment.

Rail congestion in Chicago is a big issue for companies all over the U.S. Six of North America's largest seven railroads converge on Chicago, hauling everything from Midwestern grain to televisions made in China. These railroads often jostle for track space with a variety of other trains, including Amtrak and Chicago's commuter-rail line, Metra.

Canadian National says the plan makes financial sense and is environmentally friendly. Chief Executive E. Hunter Harrison argues that removing a major bottleneck in the nation's rail system would help everyone because trains are more fuel-efficient than trucks and reduce highway congestion by taking freight off the freeways.

"How are you going to move cargo in this country?" Mr. Hunter asked in a recent interview. "Railroads are the game today. Everybody says that. But if nobody wants them in their backyard, then we're in trouble."

Some residents of towns close to the center of Chicago are offended by the opposition campaign mounted by wealthier neighborhoods. Illinois State Rep. Elaine Nekritz, whose district includes the blue-collar town of Des Plaines, says her town "does not have the wherewithal to hire P.R. people and lobbyists."

But homeowners in western suburbs, some of them dotted with sprawling mansions and horse farms, say the surge in train traffic planned by Canadian National is unacceptable. A video posted on the Web site of a leading opposition group shows a line of emergency vehicles, lights flashing and sirens wailing, halted at a rail crossing as a train slowly passes by. The accompanying text cites the frightful results if an ambulance is delayed in reaching a heart-attack victim: "For every minute that passes without defibrillation, your chances of survival decrease by 7 to 10 percent."

Canadian National, based in Montreal, says those concerns are unfounded, insisting the extra traffic would result in only minor delays at the railcrossings along the line. The company is one of the biggest railroads in North America. It reported 2007 revenue of $7.9 billion and has a 20,400-mile rail network stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Canadian National's Mr. Harrison said he has been eyeing the suburban Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway line for a decade. The EJ&E line forms a large semicircle outside downtown Chicago, looping through or near suburbs such as Frankfort to the south, Aurora to the west and Barrington to the north.

U.S. Steel has owned the EJ&E since the beginning of the 20th century, using it to move steel, coke and other raw materials. In the 1970s, traffic along the line began to wane. Meanwhile, Chicago's suburbs were mushrooming. Tens of thousands of new residents crowded into new housing and expanding towns near the old rail corridor. "The EJ&E's always been there," said Jim Giblin, a Chicago-based transportation consultant.

In September 2007, Canadian National announced a deal to purchase the line for $300 million. Canadian National executives estimated that trains trying to get from one side of Chicago to the other could save lots of time by detouring through the suburbs. The company says trains commonly spend 24 to 36 hours snaking along existing lines from the city's north to south sides.

The outcry against the proposed deal caught the company off guard. Mr. Harrison said he knew he had a big problem when he traveled to Barrington to discuss the issue at a public meeting. Virtually every house had a yard sign denouncing the rail plan, he says.

"CN has always gotten its way," said Peter Crouch, 49, who made the video posted on the opposition group's Web site and who lives 500 feet from the EJ&E line in Barrington. "They came across people they thought they could literally run over and they weren't prepared for it."

Write to Alex Roth at alex.roth@wsj.com

[Agamemnus]

Great article.

As you may know, I am a strong proponent of less noise.


When wealthy neighborhoods along the line learned more trains would be rolling through their suburbs, they were suddenly up in arms, hiring lawyers and publicists to fight the plan. Some inner-city communities, plagued for decades by the ever-present rumbling of rail cars and locomotives, hailed the proposal as a way to ease congestion in their neighborhoods.


And how exactly is 4 railcars a day going to be better than 5 railcars a day? Besides this, if the company clears congestion problems, it means they'll actually have more railcars coming through their city by the very definition of congestion. Stupid!

The real solution is to add more volume where it already exists, and add noise-control awnings, fewer horn sounds, noise absorption walls, more slightly underground rails, and simply trees, instead of trying to step on the middle class with lawyers. I really do hope the rail company loses.

[Loki]

I think a reasonable solution would be to calculate the "cost" of this sound to the people in the area and have company donate that much money to the city's school board each year.

[Agamemnus]

I think a reasonable solution would be to calculate the "cost" of this sound to the people in the area and have company donate that much money to the city's school board each year.

Would not compensate fairly to residents actually living near the tracks.

Would not remove noise.

Fail. Forever. :bulb:

Edit: It would only be reasonable if only these people didn't really care all that much for the noise... if they thought it was a nuisance rather than a severe crippling blow to their lives.

[Loki]

You can't remove the noise. It's a matter of the noise either being in one place or another. :bored: Why don't we just remove all rail tracks and highways from the country? Wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone. :rolleyes:

[Dreadnaught]

The thing is that the railway has been active for almost a hundred years. The wealthy suburbs grew up around the railway. And it's not like the seller of the rails (US Steel) ever gave up the right to run trains on it.

These people are just flipping out because there will be more traffic on the rails — even though increasing use of the rails in their area will dramatically decrease the amount of rail traffic in other [coincidentally, poorer] areas.

[Agamemnus]

You can't remove the noise. It's a matter of the noise either being in one place or another. :bored: Why don't we just remove all rail tracks and highways from the country? Wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone. :rolleyes:
You can put the noise near highways via smart design. Since that obviously isn't possible, you can always limit the noise by using more aerodynamic designs, fewer horns, more covers, more lubrication on the tracks, different track materials, fewer rail curves, etcetcetcetcetc. It costs money.

And furthermore, I reject the notion that "more is better" on a second principle (besides the externalities): congestion reduces efficiency, but more tracks do not necessarily increase efficiency. If the issue is congestion, then companies would be much more efficient as a whole to simply use fewer trains and smaller loads. Since no one company owns all the tracks, they are rented out, and the companies that offer the tracks probably don't care if your trains stall, so the companies that actually haul the goods over-burden the rail lines based on this logic: if I don't, someone else will, and my (fewer) trains will be just as stuck as the rest. Classic Prisoner's Dilemma.




The thing is that the railway has been active for almost a hundred years. The wealthy suburbs grew up around the railway. And it's not like the seller of the rails (US Steel) ever gave up the right to run trains on it.

These people are just flipping out because there will be more traffic on the rails — even though increasing use of the rails in their area will dramatically decrease the amount of rail traffic in other [coincidentally, poorer] areas.

But it won't decrease rail traffic in other areas, just congestion, as I explained...

Even if there was a pre-existing rail line, it doesn't mean the company has an automatic right to modernize/enhance it and put more traffic into it due to at the very least the noise externality.

[teclis]

But it won't decrease rail traffic in other areas, just congestion, as I explained...

Even if there was a pre-existing rail line, it doesn't mean the company has an automatic right to modernize/enhance it and put more traffic into it due to at the very least the noise externality.

They bought a home near a railway, they knew the risks. If they were building a new railway, maybe, but this is ridiculous. The freight will move, either efficiently along this rail line, or less efficiently somewhere else. The protests from a bunch of snobs that bought homes near a railway and are dumb enough to whine about it shouldn't matter one whit. I hope the rail company wins, so hard.

[Minx]

The homeowners shouldn't be compensated. That money and the money spent on lawyers etc. should go towards making a less noisy train transportation system. Maybe plant pretty trees around the tracks!

Or they should go into zeppelins. Zeppelins are the future.

[Dreadnaught]

And furthermore, I reject the notion that "more is better" on a second principle (besides the externalities): congestion reduces efficiency, but more tracks do not necessarily increase efficiency. If the issue is congestion, then companies would be much more efficient as a whole to simply use fewer trains and smaller loads. Since no one company owns all the tracks, they are rented out, and the companies that offer the tracks probably don't care if your trains stall, so the companies that actually haul the goods over-burden the rail lines based on this logic: if I don't, someone else will, and my (fewer) trains will be just as stuck as the rest. Classic Prisoner's Dilemma.

Huh? :bulb:


But it won't decrease rail traffic in other areas, just congestion, as I explained...

Even if there was a pre-existing rail line, it doesn't mean the company has an automatic right to modernize/enhance it and put more traffic into it due to at the very least the noise externality.

It will decrease traffic, thus decreasing congestion. Instead of six major rail lines passing through Chicago, there will only be five, with an easy way to actually bypass the city without stopping. Long term, traffic might go up on all rails, but that's a function of general growth.

The "noise externality" was built-in to the deal when a prosperous suburb grew up around a pre-existing freight rail line. Also note that a lot of the noise can be eliminated by adding more grade crossing guards, which by federal regulation can allow a train to pass through with little or no horn use.

[']['ear]

The homeowners shouldn't be compensated. That money and the money spent on lawyers etc. should go towards making a less noisy train transportation system. Maybe plant pretty trees around the tracks!

Amen! People do it for freeways all the time.

Or they should go into zeppelins. Zeppelins are the future.

I LOLed.

It will decrease traffic, thus decreasing congestion. Instead of six major rail lines passing through Chicago, there will only be five, with an easy way to actually bypass the city without stopping. Long term, traffic might go up on all rails, but that's a function of general growth.

The "noise externality" was built-in to the deal when a prosperous suburb grew up around a pre-existing freight rail line.

No kidding! Tough ****. The rail line was there before, stop whining about it's existence and start lobbying your community to engage in noise abatement.

Gah, I can't stand it when people don't take responsibility for where they buy their house. Do your damned research, people! I did all kinds of digging before we signed a contract on our house.

Also note that a lot of the noise can be eliminated by adding more grade crossing guards, which by federal regulation can allow a train to pass through with little or no horn use.

Yup.


It's a real bummer to me how much we have let rail languish in this country. It's a shame.


Edit: I did read somewhere (during the election season) that most human endeavor can be broken down into various "interest groups." That really that's all there is when it comes to decision making and politics. This article argued that viewing things as monolithic was always a mistake, because there would always be many disparate threads of interest in any large group. It was interesting to view the recent unraveling of the Republicans in light of that idea, as various of their interest groups realized that their interests were being poorly served. The Dems, of course, have experienced it before. More so, really, since their self-destruction is often based on these interest groups not having discipline, like the Republicans are famous for.

Anywho, NIMBY will always be an issue for any project like this. The only real issue is the magnitude of the resources available to the NIMBYers. That's why new freeways go through poor neighborhoods, not rich ones. It takes dollars to make your voice heard.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Dread, the fact railroads run through poorer neighborhoods is no coincidence... furthermore this was a potential risk all along, I do not beleive the residents should be able to bar thsi from happening, they can express tehir disliking of it, and the rail-road company can take that into consideration, but that's the extent they can justifiable contend this change.

It was a potential risk, they gambled on and lost, tell them to sell their homes at half price they bought it for and move today if it matters that much.

I honestly don't know how many people we're talking gets affected, I think it's more that people with financial influence are getting affected is why there is a stir.


I think the most reasonable thing to do would be to dampen the noise.... get some engineers to look at it, and set up some sort of dampener.

Might be very expensive to do, but the wealthy community may be willing to fork the bill, or split it.

[Agamemnus]

Huh?

:(

Congestion does not equal traffic volume.

If there is a high volume, and the company wants more capacity for their trains, a new parallel line will not do anything with respect to the old line.

If there is congestion, and the company wants more capacity for their trains, a new parallel line may or may not decrease congestion. If it decreases congestion, it will increase volume.

[Nessus]

Or they should go into zeppelins. Zeppelins are the future.

I can't believe Minx said something I agree with wholesale.

[Illusions]

I can't believe Minx said something I agree with wholesale.

Zepplins uber alles? :noob:
Zepplins überall? :noob:

[Lebanese Dragon]

Or they should go into zeppelins. Zeppelins are the future

Why do the Germans have to be so damn smart?

Ridiculous the stuff they came up with, also ridiculous at what cost at times...

[Minx]

I can't believe Minx said something I agree with wholesale.

I always knew ALL your beliefs couldn't be ridiculous :downcast:

I don't understand one thing. If these homeowners haven't got a leg to stand on, why is there a campaign? It's not like they can say that trains today are louder than they used to be.

That being said, I have a question: are there noise-pollution fines in the US or anywhere else?

[']['ear]

One of my favorite features of "The Watchmen:" The dirigibles. They're just there, floating around in the background. Cool.

[LittleFuzzy]

But it won't decrease rail traffic in other areas, just congestion, as I explained...

Even if there was a pre-existing rail line, it doesn't mean the company has an automatic right to modernize/enhance it and put more traffic into it due to at the very least the noise externality.

Why would you want to REDUCE rail traffic at all? It's a good thing that isn't used enough as it is. You seem to be working from same strange perspective where the initial assumption is that rail is a bad thing that should only be tolerated where absolutely necessary and whose use needs to be reduced as much as possible. Why is that?

[LittleFuzzy]

That being said, I have a question: are there noise-pollution fines in the US or anywhere else?

Noise-pollution comes down to local ordinances *not even the state level* but you can't really run afoul of them unless you're either making excessive levels of noise while engaged in a reasonable activity *i.e. in this case if trains moving along those tracks were blowing their horns a whole lot more than they should* or by engaging in some loud activity that is unreasonable, like really loud residential parties. There's not going to be any success trying to level a noise-pollution fine in this case.

[GGT]

.... If you bought a house/apartment near a rarely used rail line, would you protest if someone came in and tried to run many more trains along the line?

Trains! :heart:

Even if one admits there is a problem with more trains like this, does the community owe it to the greater good to shut up about this?

Yeah, they should shut up. Or if they're so honked off about the noise or emergency vehicle access, spend money on that, instead of litigation.


(The chart shows income levels there from 1999....wonder what it is now.)

[Ominous Gamer]

The railway was there first argument is ****.

Everyone lives off a road right? So its cool if we start running semis down it 24/7 cause its the quickest route to the new gas depot?
Cool if they expand the lines 2 or 3 times over, make it a nice little interstate connection?
The answer would be no.

The railways need to adjust to the community that they are reintroducing themselves into; noise and light reduction, reduced speeds, killing the horns during certain hours, redoing certain crosses that were not there 100 years ago, etc.

[GGT]

When you buy a house, you should know the legal easements. They're disclosed in the title search and land survey, way before closing.

Most homes (that aren't on a private road) connect to roads owned by township/county/state. They can and do widen public roads with eminent domain, or they can and do get voted down, or build those hideous sound barrier walls as a compromise.

The Railway, a company and not a municipality, owned the tracks and probably a right-of-way easement on each side first.

Buyer beware, etc.

[Dreadnaught]

:(

Congestion does not equal traffic volume.

If there is a high volume, and the company wants more capacity for their trains, a new parallel line will not do anything with respect to the old line.

If there is congestion, and the company wants more capacity for their trains, a new parallel line may or may not decrease congestion. If it decreases congestion, it will increase volume.

Congestion refers to how fast the "volume" of traffic is moving.

Lots of people don't have WSJ accounts, so I'll put the graphic up here, which hopefully makes this more clear:

http://i43.tinypic.com/ip42vo.gif

This is not about a parallel line. It's about a line that bypasses the whole mess of rail traffic in Chicago, allowing freight to move faster from point to point (if it's not bound for Chicago).

The railway was there first argument is ****.

Everyone lives off a road right? So its cool if we start running semis down it 24/7 cause its the quickest route to the new gas depot?
Cool if they expand the lines 2 or 3 times over, make it a nice little interstate connection?
The answer would be no.

The railways need to adjust to the community that they are reintroducing themselves into; noise and light reduction, reduced speeds, killing the horns during certain hours, redoing certain crosses that were not there 100 years ago, etc.

The rail way hasn't been abandoned. It's still in use. But the point of the purchase is so that another company can use it more to shift traffic away from a zone where it's too congested.

I agree that the railway should re-make grade crossings in the area, but I don't think they are under obligation to reduce speeds to less than they were before.

Alas, if I disappear for the next few days, it's because I am about to head off to my girlfriend's for my second Christmas ever...

[Agamemnus]

Why would you want to REDUCE rail traffic at all? It's a good thing that isn't used enough as it is. You seem to be working from same strange perspective where the initial assumption is that rail is a bad thing that should only be tolerated where absolutely necessary and whose use needs to be reduced as much as possible. Why is that?
No, I don't want to reduce rail traffic. Rail volume and the amount of cars on a track do not necessarily correlate.

All economic growth should be responsible growth -- eg: a competent party without a stake in either outcome must try to find the best solution. That rarely happens anywhere in the world, though... that's why we have lawyers.



Noise-pollution comes down to local ordinances *not even the state level* but you can't really run afoul of them unless you're either making excessive levels of noise while engaged in a reasonable activity *i.e. in this case if trains moving along those tracks were blowing their horns a whole lot more than they should* or by engaging in some loud activity that is unreasonable, like really loud residential parties. There's not going to be any success trying to level a noise-pollution fine in this case.
Noise pollution can become a state level issue. They have the right to control it (at least in Massachusetts), especially considering that rail line management is a state/federal issue. From my experience they don't care. Nobody cares. :( I'm rooting for lawyers, lulz. :bored:



Congestion refers to how fast the "volume" of traffic is moving.

(which is slow)... and also it means that there are more rail cars than there should be for efficient use- take out rail engine/cars, and you'll get more volume.


This is not about a parallel line. It's about a line that bypasses the whole mess of rail traffic in Chicago, allowing freight to move faster from point to point (if it's not bound for Chicago).
Well, that would still reduce traffic in Chicago, making the volume bigger and the amount of noise bigger.. at least in the short term. In the long term you are back to congestion (at least in Chicago) because the rail companies can't agree to limit their traffic. (reason I know this: because of already existing congestion. If they had been cooperating, they would simply be adding volume instead of reducing congestion)


I agree that the railway should re-make grade crossings in the area, but I don't think they are under obligation to reduce speeds to less than they were before.


They'll need to provide more car/foot bridges for crossings, too, regardless if they can/will reduce speed. This isn't a city they're dealing with, so no elevated rail means no crossing... the ads the opposition is running seem to be fairly accurate if there aren't any bridges.

[Ominous Gamer]

Most homes (that aren't on a private road) connect to roads owned by township/county/state. They can and do widen public roads with eminent domain, or they can and do get voted down, or build those hideous sound barrier walls as a compromise.

The Railway, a company and not a municipality, owned the tracks and probably a right-of-way easement on each side first.

Buyer beware, etc.
When eminent domain comes into play the owners are at least compensated, or appeased (you used compromise).



The rail way hasn't been abandoned. It's still in use. But the point of the purchase is so that another company can use it more to shift traffic away from a zone where it's too congested.

I agree that the railway should re-make grade crossings in the area, but I don't think they are under obligation to reduce speeds to less than they were before.


Neither you or the article has produced any information for how non-abandoned the lines were. A random weekend maintenance unit is a far cry from "always in use" when you try to compare it to hourly shipments.
Downtown Tampa is split in two by railroad tracks, they aren't abandoned, but they sure as hell don't use them every day. The ones that do use it, are forced to do it at turtle speeds.

[Dreadnaught]

As far as I've been able to tell from following this (as a shareholder), this is an active rail line.

[GGT]

When eminent domain comes into play the owners are at least compensated, or appeased (you used compromise).

Sounds to me like they're trying to negotiate with the communities in good faith. http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=108353

“The only issue has become the, quote, mitigation of the environmental issues,” said E. Hunter Harrison, president and CEO of Canadian National, in an earnings conference call Oct. 21. “We’re perfectly willing, and we have said to the court and to the STB that we would…not change any operation until they feel like and are comfortable that the environmental issues have been dealt with.”

As Canadian National awaits the decision, it is actively pursuing voluntary mitigation agreements with cities to establish quiet zones and implement noise mitigation measures. Joliet, Ill., and Crest Hill, Ill., so far are the only two municipalities that have reached such an agreement with Canadian National.

The company also has developed a $60 million comprehensive voluntary mitigation plan and will spend another $100 million on infrastructure improvements on the EJ&E. These include reducing crossing blockages, a commitment from Canadian National that a public crossing will not be blocked longer than 10 minutes unless it cannot be avoided, accelerated implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s locomotive emissions reduction efforts, adoption of efficient fuel saving practices, and implementation of dust suppression controls.

“It’s inevitable for Canadian National to provide some sort of compensation to placate the communities,” Schoonmaker said. “Can they complete the deal without providing some sort of relief? Sure, but it’s not good business to do it without the cities’ approval.”



Neither you or the article has produced any information for how non-abandoned the lines were. A random weekend maintenance unit is a far cry from "always in use" when you try to compare it to hourly shipments.
Downtown Tampa is split in two by railroad tracks, they aren't abandoned, but they sure as hell don't use them every day. The ones that do use it, are forced to do it at turtle speeds.

Comparing Tampa to exurban Chicago? nah, they're very different. Street-level tracks snake thru all the villages, homes and shops built up around (and after) the rails. Those RR crossings ding bells and flash red lights all the time, but they don't complain about commuter access to the city, with charming little stations, as long as it shaves an hour off their drive time.

They're (understandably) worried about property value, safety and noise. But is wanting to stay in the 70s or 80s and punish transportation progress best? Car traffic could be routed on new over-passes, but I'll bet the wealthier areas would try to block that, too. Just as they would widening roads for diesel truck lanes...or re-routing air traffic from Midway or O'Hare.

This is NIMBY. "Living on the wrong side of the tracks" to them. They want consumer stuff that appears in stores and commodities to magically find its way, out of sight out of mind. Just route the world around their village, or better yet, thru poorer areas that can't pay a legal team?

The dominance of the car and suburban sprawl is changing. Toooot toooot Allll Aboard! :)

[Agamemnus]

...stuff...

The dominance of the car and suburban sprawl is changing. Toooot toooot Allll Aboard! :)

Well, not withstanding the ridiculous last line,

I think you seriously overestimate the resolve of today's (or yester-year's) middle class. I think it is in fact the opposite... people are becoming more, not less, aware of the environmental impact (to their and the ecosystem's health) of economic activity.

[GGT]

The middle class people in the article? They only care about their immediate environment, the one around their house.

Would taking all those stacked train containers off rail and onto 18 wheel diesel trucks/asphalt roads be better for the ecosystem, and the economic logistics of mass-transport of goods....?

How many trucks would it take to replace one train's capacity to haul?



Canadian National says the plan makes financial sense and is environmentally friendly. Chief Executive E. Hunter Harrison argues that removing a major bottleneck in the nation's rail system would help everyone because trains are more fuel-efficient than trucks and reduce highway congestion by taking freight off the freeways.

If you've got some proof to dispute the above claim, then cough it up :p

[Dreadnaught]

Railway akbar. :up:

And nice to be a shareholder. Assuming US Steel doesn't pullout just because they can't close by the seemingly arbitrary December 31 deadline.

U.S. signs off on Canadian National rail plan
Trains may triple in many suburbs

By Richard Wronski | Tribune reporter
December 25, 2008

Federal regulators have given a green light to Canadian National Railway's plan to divert freight traffic through Chicago's suburbs, a possible boon for the economy but potentially bad news for many suburban motorists likely to encounter delays at blocked crossings.

The U.S. Surface Transportation Board unanimously approved on Wednesday CN's $300 million purchase of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway. But in response to critics, the board imposed an unprecedented condition: CN must pay tens of millions of dollars to build two overpasses in Aurora and Lynwood.

Approval means the Montreal-based railroad can turn the lightly used EJ&E into a rail superhighway, tripling or quadrupling the number of trains now running through suburbs from Mundelein to Joliet to Gary.

The decision, which doesn't become official until Jan. 23, is expected to face a legal challenge from suburban opponents.

The purchase also isn't a done deal, as CN will miss a Dec. 31 deadline set by the EJ&E's owner, U.S. Steel. The railroad said Wednesday it still hoped to close on the purchase, but U.S. Steel had no comment.

The board's decision came after 22 public hearings that drew thousands of residents worried about 2-mile-long trains rolling through their towns, blocking crossings, delaying emergency responders, adding noise and lowering property values.

An environmental-impact analysis concluded motorists would face long delays at 12 rail crossings in several communities. About 34 suburbs would experience more trains, but 80 would see fewer.

Left unresolved are problems facing motorists and emergency responders in towns like Barrington and Frankfort, where one train can block several crossings at once. The board's decision does not address the need for overpasses in these suburbs or who would pay for them. Typically, the state and federal governments would pay most of the cost.

CN and transportation experts praised the purchase, which could ease freight traffic in Chicago and nearby suburbs and pump an estimated $60 million into the area's economy.

"I am pleased that the board agreed . . . to grant the relief that this merger will provide to the many Chicago neighborhoods that have been disproportionately burdened for many decades with severe rail traffic-related roadway congestion," said board Chairman Charles Nottingham.

Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner said the federal decision was a blow to towns that had opposed the plan. More than two dozen communities formed a group called The Regional Answer to Canadian National, or TRAC. Officials plan to meet next week to consider how to seek a review of the decision or challenge it in court, he said.

"We're disappointed that it was approved," Weisner said. "I think that we have demonstrated pretty clearly over the last few months that . . . this is not something that should be approved."

This month, a federal environmental report on the purchase concluded that suburbs along the EJ&E would experience "adverse impacts," including vehicle-traffic delays, increased noise and air pollution, and shipments of hazardous materials. The impact would be less for towns within the rail line's 198-mile arc.

The current system of 2,800 miles of crisscrossing railroad track creates bottlenecks across Chicago. The purchase would shift freight traffic away from the city by looping it through the outer suburbs.

CN will be required to pay the bulk of the multimillion-dollar cost of building an overpass or underpass at two locations: Ogden Avenue in Aurora and Lincoln Highway (U.S. Highway 30) in Lynwood.

The railway must bear 67 percent of the cost of the Aurora work and nearly 79 percent in Lynwood. Either overpass could easily cost $50 million or more. Traditionally, railroads have paid only a small fraction of the cost of such grade crossings.

The board required CN to install cameras to monitor highway-rail crossings to assist emergency providers, improve school and pedestrian safety, and take noise-reduction measures. It also imposed a five-year environmental and operational review on the railroad.

The acquisition "would not have a substantial adverse effect" on Metra's plans to build a suburb-to-suburb STAR line, the environmental report concluded, adding it could benefit a South Shore Railway expansion.

Before the decision, CN reached agreements to minimize the rail impact in 10 communities. In Mundelein, for example, village officials negotiated a separate agreement that requires CN to pay $500,000 for an overpass feasibility study at Illinois Highway 60/83.

Suburbs that did not sign agreements will get a portion of the roughly $60 million CN pledged to handle mitigation efforts.

Tribune reporter Russell Working contributed to this report.

rwronski@tribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-canadian-national-25-dec25,0,6672248.story

And the business-oriented Bloomberg version:

CN Rail Wins Approval to Acquire Line From U.S. Steel (Update4)

By Angela Greiling Keane and Hugo Miller

Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian National Railway Co., the country’s largest railroad, won U.S. approval for the $300 million acquisition of a Chicago-area line from U.S. Steel Corp. to bypass congestion in the city.

The purchase of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. can be completed subject to certain conditions, including payment for school- and pedestrian-safety measures, the U.S. Surface Transportation Board said today in a statement on its Web site.

“The transaction will not result in a substantial lessening of competition, the creation of a monopoly or a restraint of trade in freight surface transportation in any region of the United States,” the Washington-based board said.

Buying the EJ&E will give Canadian National a route that skirts traffic tie-ups in Chicago, where all four big U.S. carriers operate. Union Pacific Corp., the largest U.S. railroad, told regulators this month that its rights to use the EJ&E were being impeded by Montreal-based Canadian National.

The Canadian railroad was pleased with the U.S. board’s approval, while disappointed with “significant additional” conditions that went beyond recommendations in the agency’s environmental impact statement, Chief Executive Officer Hunter Harrison said in a statement.

The company said it expects to close the acquisition shortly after Jan. 23, when the board’s decision takes effect.

Canadian National climbed 61 cents, or 1.5 percent, to C$42.34 at 1:12 p.m. in Toronto Stock Exchange trading. The exchange closed early before the Christmas holiday.

U.S. Steel fell 42 cents, or 1.2 percent, to $34.04 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The Pittsburgh-based company will retain a portion of the freight line supporting its Gary Works in northwest Indiana and rename it the Gary Railway.

Traffic Complaints

Canadian National and U.S. Steel agreed on the sale in September 2007, setting in motion a regulatory-approval process that included complaints from cities in Illinois and Indiana along EJ&E tracks about increased rail traffic.

Today’s STB’s decision acknowledged the concerns, saying the rail-line purchase would create “adverse environmental impacts.”

Terms imposed on Canadian National by the STB include paying most of the cost for two projects to separate EJ&E tracks from road crossings; installing cameras along the line; and taking other safety steps.

The railroad also must submit quarterly reports to the board for five years showing it is implementing those measures and must comply with agreements reached beforehand with individual towns.

To contact the reporters on this story: Angela Greiling Keane in Washington at agreilingkea@bloomberg.net; Hugo Miller in Toronto on hugomiller@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: December 24, 2008 16:14 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a1Rv7O.HROqw&refer=canada#

[oldmunchkin]

First, a small history lesson. :p

The town I live in was built in the 1800's. Then the railroad was built to bring in supplies and ship out livestock and silver from the mine. I guess it was pretty active at this time.

As time went on, the mines closed and livestock started being shipped by truck instead of rail. As a child, the only time I saw a train come thru was when they brought grains into the feed elevator.

Sometime in the late 70's or early 80's, the coal mines in Converse and Campbell counties started shipping coal out in large amounts. All of a sudden, we had train traffic! In 1983-early 1985, a new track was built thru here, and a main highway was given an overpass so traffic didn't back up down the highway. Then, in about 1987, the double-mained the line thru here. After the second track was finished to the mines, trains started coming thru here at an average of 4 per hour, 2 loaded and 2 empties. This was a great change from even 3 years before, making some here have a serious attitude toward the railroad.

In the late 1990's or early 2000's, CNW sold out to UP. UP is now in the process of triple-maining the lines to the mines, meaning trains will, at the very least, average 6 per hour, blowing their whistles at every damned crossing (2 in town, but several within 1/2 mile either side of the city limits.) at all hours of the day and night.

We citizens of the town and county (many homes right beside the railroad tracks and another, smaller town) were NOT consulted or informed about the triple-maining, they just started building at the mines and worked their way this way. Towns along the line were told "hey, the mines have 3 tracks, so there needs to be 3 all the way to *wherever they take it*." I'm far enough away from the tracks that I have no idea if they pulled some sort of eminent domain thing or not. This is NOT what the people of this town and county wanted to have here. We kind of like to sleep (in 20 minute segments) during the night. As I have sat here and typed this, I have heard 2 trains come thru, laying on the damned horn at every crossing for at least 30 seconds, instead of the 10 to 15 required by law.

As to the mess in Chicago, if these people bought/built homes along the track after it was built, then they shouldn't *****. If they already had homes there and then the tracks were build, then they should *****. Guess then we would see who was there at the beginning and who is whining because things changed.

[Dreadnaught]

If they are using the horns more than they are supposed to, it sounds like there is a problem with people crossing the grade when trains are approaching.

Why don't people lobby the countries/feds to put more robust railroad crossings? It's only two crossings — if they put down gates that completely covered the grade crossings, the horns would not be needed.

[GGT]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/canadian-national-railway-rail-deal-approved.html

Mr. Wronski gets around, how funny I'd read one that one, and Dread posts another. :D Bottom line is this:

Studies have said that 80 communities would have fewer trains, and 34 communities would have more.

munckin, no offense, but the history of Chicago-area rail is different than Wyoming. Just in volume. Some areas have 8 tracks, Amtrak lives alongside 6 freight lines, plus Metra. Over several waterways with lots of trestles and movable bridges.

Even Joliet has a Union Station, they grew up around trains, it's part of their history! These are places that began as industrial and transportation hubs (and steel towns).

Just one link, there's tons of info on midwest rail, must be a lot of train buffs out there :) http://www.dhke.com/CRJ/


edit: ps, the first link has a running commentary on the NIMBYism ;)

[Agamemnus]

The middle class people in the article? They only care about their immediate environment, the one around their house.

Would taking all those stacked train containers off rail and onto 18 wheel diesel trucks/asphalt roads be better for the ecosystem, and the economic logistics of mass-transport of goods....?

How many trucks would it take to replace one train's capacity to haul?


Well, that's only if you pre-suppose that the traffic will only be diverted, not increased, and that things really happen the way the rail co's claim. Again, my contention is that the system doesn't work right to begin with because rail co's put too many cars and engines on too few rails, causing the congestion. All that has to be done is a federal mandate must be put into effect to study and implement ways and methods that would incentivise rail co's to use rail capacity properly. In other words, again, it's a "tragedy of the commons" or a "Prisoner's Dilemma".


Now, let us assume for theoretical purposes, that we are not faced with congestion but instead we are faced with high volume, and a desire of rail co's to increase volume without causing congestion. Then it would be appropriate to increase the capacity of the rails, but there are so many methods of noise reduction-- one I like the most is to put the rails in trenches below ground level and in residential areas, surround them with walls, for one. That would eliminate crossing problems (just put bridges over trenches), allowing the trains to run much faster, and reduce noise significantly.

And yes, that quote is flawed because the rail does not help everyone, it helps the rail co that owns the line, hurts the hundreds of thousands of residents near the line, and somewhere down the line may help our economy.

Edit: Just read the new article on the outcome. Looks like news as expected.. regulators took a middle-of-the-road position. I'd like to see their economic and environmental impact study, though. (which they didn't have..)

[Dreadnaught]

You still seem to have a limited grasp of this...the congestion issues are partly because the trains have to travel through Chicago, where many trains are unloading, loading, being routed, etc.

This line allows one major railway to route trains around Chicago if they have no reason to pass through there. This makes the rail operations within Chicago less congested with trains that don't even really need to be there, as they aren't stopping.

As the regulators pointed out, this helps everyone. People get faster, cheaper goods. More inner-city communities will have fewer trains passing through them compared to the suburban towns that will get a few more.

Also, where are you getting that putting rails in trenches significantly inhibits noise? I think you're just not correct on this.

[Agamemnus]

You still seem to have a limited grasp of this...the congestion issues are partly because the trains have to travel through Chicago, where many trains are unloading, loading, being routed, etc.

This line allows one major railway to route trains around Chicago if they have no reason to pass through there. This makes the rail operations within Chicago less congested with trains that don't even really need to be there, as they aren't stopping.

As the regulators pointed out, this helps everyone. People get faster, cheaper goods. More inner-city communities will have fewer trains passing through them compared to the suburban towns that will get a few more.

Yes, it will help congestion, temporarily. But it's really about (sort of) capacity, not about where what goes. So you'll have increased capacity in both Chicago and Illinois, for a while. But then there's going to be congestion again as the amount of cars and engines on the rails going through Chicago increases.

I will maybe draw you a picture with a free transport sim of what I think will happen tomorrow... :)





Also, where are you getting that putting rails in trenches significantly inhibits noise? I think you're just not correct on this.
Let's try it. :bulb:

The ground absorbs noise and vibration.. sound travels faster in the air than in the ground... as sound travels, the matter around it absorbs its energy, dissipating it...

[Dreadnaught]

1) This is about increasing capacity and reducing congestion. Where the trains go is entirely relevant, as the trains going through Chicago but not stopping there is contributing to congestion.

2) There are Subway lines in Brooklyn that are built into trenches. I've never noticed that they are any quieter. If anything, sound bounces off the cement walls and echoes.

[Nessus]

You still haven't figured out Aga will gladly speak right out his arse about anything, particularly related to science?

[Agamemnus]

1) This is about increasing capacity and reducing congestion. Where the trains go is entirely relevant, as the trains going through Chicago but not stopping there is contributing to congestion.

Uh... that didn't make much sense... :bulb: go to sleep.



2) There are Subway lines in Brooklyn that are built into trenches. I've never noticed that they are any quieter. If anything, sound bounces off the cement walls and echoes.

Probably quieter than having them rumble through your living room. I guess the echo-ing would be very annoying, but it is probably quieter..


You still haven't figured out Aga will gladly speak right out his arse about anything, particularly related to science?
:(

[LittleFuzzy]

Uh... that didn't make much sense... :bulb: go to sleep.

Actually it makes perfect sense *other than one improperly conjugated verb* The problem is that you don't seem to have read the same material as the rest of us and appear to always be talking about something similar but slightly askew from what the rest of us are talking about.

Probably quieter than having them rumble through your living room.

Probably, but a red herring. Trains aren't going through anyone's living room. It would violate all kinds of safety regulations.

[teclis]

for the record, sound travels faster through the ground than it does through the air, because solids are more dense than gasses. Earth is a dampener though, because the transition from one medium to another uses energy and breaks up the sound waves.

[Nessus]

for the record, sound travels faster through the ground than it does through the air, because solids are more dense than gasses. Earth is a dampener though, because the transition from one medium to another uses energy and breaks up the sound waves.
But most (or at least a large part) of the noise is created near the tracks and wheels, and even the hull of the train can carry sound directly to the ground.

[GGT]

stuff

Sounds like you're comparing trains/rail to vehicles/roads. Not the same thing. There aren't hundreds of trains idled in the roundhouse, just waiting to rush the tracks once the Chicago diversion is put into place. There also aren't multiple choice back-roads for trains to use, like truckers or car drivers can.

There are university degrees in transportation and logistics, even time efficiency engineers. Business executives that run major companies, or move goods to market, actually know what they're doing and what they need. "Time is Money". It's not just teh evil big train company making stuff up....

If there's a bottleneck of congestion, diverting to an existing bypass track makes sense. Ownership and use-leasing comes into play. Building new tracks takes time and money, then NIMBY comes to play again. That may have to be addressed in the future, but right now, all they need to do is bypass Chicago.

Did you ever play with trains as a kid? If you've never visited stockyards or rail yards, consider it. Great fun! :)

[Agamemnus]

Sounds like you're comparing trains/rail to vehicles/roads. Not the same thing. There aren't hundreds of trains idled in the roundhouse, just waiting to rush the tracks once the Chicago diversion is put into place.
Wouldn't be so sure..


Ownership and use-leasing comes into play.

And while you're talking about something slightly different, that is the issue.

If all those engineers are so smart, why is there still congestion? Why can't they just reduce the amount of trains trying to poke through, and thus reduce congestion?

So one more time:
Why not just reduce the amount of trains running on the tracks to reduce congestion?

[GGT]

If you want to cut the number of trains, then you'd have to cut cargo volume, slowing time of transport, increasing cost.

Track space is limited. Can't stack the containers any higher, they'd never get under bridges. Hooking more containers to fewer engines would block crossroads even longer time.

Would you be willing to pay twice as much or wait twice as long for the stuffs you buy to reach the store?

*edit* don't forget, those trains don't want or need to go thru Chicago but there's no other way.....unless they can use a bypass!

[Dreadnaught]

If all those engineers are so smart, why is there still congestion? Why can't they just reduce the amount of trains trying to poke through, and thus reduce congestion?

So one more time:
Why not just reduce the amount of trains running on the tracks to reduce congestion?

:bulb:

Because demand is increasing, both short-term and long-term. Many of the rail lines around Chicago were built a hundred years ago. There's a lot more goods to ship nowadays than there were a hundred years ago.

[Agamemnus]

If you want to cut the number of trains, then you'd have to cut cargo volume, slowing time of transport, increasing cost.

Track space is limited. Can't stack the containers any higher, they'd never get under bridges. Hooking more containers to fewer engines would block crossroads even longer time.

Would you be willing to pay twice as much or wait twice as long for the stuffs you buy to reach the store?

*edit* don't forget, those trains don't want or need to go thru Chicago but there's no other way.....unless they can use a bypass!

By reducing congestion you automatically increase volume. So, if you reduce congestion by removing trains, you will increase volume.

[LittleFuzzy]

By reducing congestion you automatically increase volume. So, if you reduce congestion by removing trains, you will increase volume.

She didn't say track volume, she said cargo volume. The two are not synonymous. There are a host of additional costs associated with the latter that do not come into play with the former. And I doubt that's the only problem with what you just said,

[Agamemnus]

She didn't say track volume, she said cargo volume. The two are not synonymous. There are a host of additional costs associated with the latter that do not come into play with the former. And I doubt that's the only problem with what you just said,

I meant volume of cargo per day, also.

[Dreadnaught]

By reducing congestion you automatically increase volume. So, if you reduce congestion by removing trains, you will increase volume.
Not exactly. But let's go with this —*volume is never going to go down. The amount of freight that will be shipped is going to increase in the long term.

[Agamemnus]

Ok, so you (you being plural here..) refuse to admit that simply reducing congestion, and the amount of cars on the rails, will increase cargo volume. Ok. I can live with that. Let's move on.

I found the report that the Economic Development Group made for Chicago's rail transit authority on the economic impact:
http://www.chicagometropolis2020.org/documents/RegionalEconomicBenefitsfromCNAcquisitionoftheEJandE-Fullreport.pdf

There are all sorts of things wrong with this study, from math errors, to assumptions that are far too general, to models that are completely incorrect, to omission of certain major costs.

It shows 80000 car hours (for CN only) per day would be saved by reducing the weight on the rail line by certain arbitrary amounts. The analysis goes on to say "a typical value for car-hire is $1/hour" and then calculates 80000*365=$29m savings. It uses a much more convoluted formula to calculate the actual engine savings and prices it at $13.5m.

While reading the report, I noticed an error on figure 2.1.-1: the percent figures for the "general freight" "bypass one yard" and second "same number of yards" in Daily Traffic Volume is actually incorrectly swapped: should be 20%/80% instead of 80%/20%. Oh, did I forget to mention that the 80/20 split is derived from the writers' definition of "most"? :(

The paper says that "The acquisition would allow CN to shift much of its current (through trip) traffic off its five lines where they enter the Chicago Terminal District (within the arc) and route them instead along the underused, circumferential EJ&E."

As far as I can tell, the following trains would no longer go through Chicago's lines:

*Intermodal trains to and from Canada: 720 cars/day.
*"Run-through trains" (presumably those going north and west): 300 cars/day.
*General freight trains (all of them) going to or from Kirk Yard or E. Joliet Yard. (yards on the to-be-expanded line): 1460 cars/day.
*Local train service: 550 cars/day.
*Interchange train service: 800 cars/day.

That is an extra 3830 cars per day that are moved out of the center and to the outside. The size of the expanded line

CN represents 7% of the total amount of cars passing daily through Chicago's lines.

The study super-fails in correctly determining benefits to other carriers. It assumes, incorrectly, that reducing freight traffic by CN's 7% reduces costs by 7.5% (.7/(1-.07) of time (they go 7.5% faster), and pins the savings at the same amount of 29m+13.5m. So many things wrong with this... basically it should be much bigger than 7.5% (maybe 15%), because reducing congestion does not linearly reduce cost.

Then there is the savings of fired workers, 10 million.

The total savings of all of this is calculated $95 million (29+13.5+10+29+13.5), but I would put it higher by $42.5 million (due to higher savings of other companies, using 15% instead of 7.5%) and thus put this at $137.5m.

The study goes on the figure out how much freight time is saved in terms on ton-hours per year. (I'll take their word on the average tons per car, which look like fairly crude estimates to me. Basically, shorter travel times means that the goods arrive at their destination faster and potentially don't have to be stored at a warehouse as long, potentially cutting inventory.

The writers use "The capital lock-up method, used by Highway Economic Requirement System, estimates the opportunity cost of freight’s travel time as it’s (sic) value discounted by one hour." Unfortunately this is not the correct model to use, because :
*It doesn't factor in % of durable goods.
*It doesn't factor in the decrease in variability of arrival time, which is the real thing that matters.
*It doesn't factor in the fact that the factories on both ends have already set up their systems to factor in these shipments at certain times of the day, and thus only economic benefits for getting the same amount of something earlier (separated from the variability aspect) is in spoilage for durable goods, and in the fact that factories would be more flexible in changing their production if they could shorten the time it takes for goods to get to the factories (very minor).

Due to their faulty model, I am going to arbitrarily divide the savings that was arrived at by 10. They arrived at $117m, so I'll put it at $11.7m.


Then, there is the issue of the economic cost of motor vehicle delay at crossings. I have little idea how they arrived at those numbers, but a few observations:

"*Consistent with the STB analysis, an hour of delay is valued at $20."
A person earning a middle class wage would earn twice that an hour, after taxes. The income of the people around the EJ&E rail line is middle class or above, so I'm going to put it at $50/hr. The income around the CN rail line is lower middle class or poor, so I'll put it at $15/hr after-tax.That comes to (-1271*15+1543*25 + ) = -19065+77150 = $58085/day or a negative impact of $21 million a year.

Then they go on to the pollution costs (trains travel farther along the EJ&E line and create more pollution). Now, they are going to be polluting areas that are higher value and more pristine, damaging the health of the more wooded areas and thus the ecosystem there, besides just damaging the land values. The impact should not be linear as the writers claim, nor should they only multiply by the amount of new pollution, but by the total pollution instead. Just for the lulz, I'm going to take their $1142965 (estimated new pollution * pollution cost per ton) and multiply it by 50. There will be less pollution in and around Chicago itself, so I can go ahead and reduce the multiplier by 20. The grand total comes to $34m. (hey, their model sucks, so I'm just following their lead)

Then they go on to motor vehicle pollution as they idle waiting for trains to pass. Negligible. Then they go to new passenger traffic created from extra train capacity and the accident rate difference between autos and trains. They assume people will switch from $.58/mile (car) compared to about $.30/mile for trains. Unfortunately they use a price of fuel of $4 (this report was released in November) instead of $2, and that makes this whole section pants.

The LAST part is concerning diversions of freight from truck to rail, but they don't give final estimates, and again that's all pants due to energy/fuel costs falling. (not to say that the viability of switching to rail fell quite as much, since trains use energy too... but the infrastructure cost of new rail investment would mean a 75% fall of gas prices made rail much less than 75% cheaper)


SUMMARY:
+$137.5m (freight co and customer savings, split in unknown fashion)
+$12m (shipment time savings for industries)
-$21m (cost of auto traffic delays)
-$34m (pollution impact (on residents/environment) of rails in wealthy, relatively pristine areas -- made up number)

Total net is $94.5m (yearly). $55m cost to Chicago, $137.5m benefit to freight co. and customers.
Assuming a 50/50 rail co./customer benefit split:
All customers: $43.5 million, $919K for CN's Canadian customers (14.5*3, 720*14*1*365/4)
CN: $38 million. (14.5+13.5+10)
Other rail cos: $56 million. ((14.5+13.5)*2)

Since CN is actually going to have to pay a lot of the abatement costs, and the expansion costs (not mentioned in the analysis), CN will definitely lose out on the deal if:

*it moves the current amount of traffic away to the new line, as given in the analysis.
*it pays even a small portion of the yearly abatement costs. 75% of two $100 million overpasses is 75m. Over ~10 years that's about $7.5m. That leaves around 305 million to burn (~10 years) for the construction and upgrade of the performance/safety tracks.

[Khendraja'aro]

I stopped reading when you calculated the "pollution costs".

Could you also calculate the pollution costs if we shipped the whole carge by truck or plane instead, and offset that against the train?

[Dreadnaught]

A friend committed suicide and I have to prepare for a funeral, but I will try to delve into Aga's likely-craptacular analysis in a few days (sorry, I am not in a good mood).

[Agamemnus]

Dreadnaught -- :( My condolences.

Khendraja'aro -- well, they did. (calculate the cost, that is)

Edit: Oops, fixed some numbers. Should be $38m for CN. In fact, that's not at all changed from the paper. I only disagree with the costs to the public, the costs to CN, and the profit of other rail co's, not the benefit of moving the trains to the other rail line for CN. (again, excluding the cost of upgrading the rail line)

[Khendraja'aro]

No, they didn't. They calculated some obscure number of the ecological damages trains were supposed to create.

Now, which number exactly, following the same logic, will the transport of the same amount of goods by truck or plan result in?

[Agamemnus]

That answer was regarding 'I stopped reading when you calculated the "pollution costs".'.. that is, they did calculate the costs themselves.

Could you also calculate the pollution costs if we shipped the whole carge by truck or plane instead, and offset that against the train?
They didn't do that calculation. They did do speculation on the willingness of truck customers to migrate to train customers. I don't know... it, or something similar was on page 27/28.

"The operating benefits for the new traffic would therefore be on the order of $15 to $45/car rather than $30 to $90 per car."

They didn't give an estimate on the whole thing. With new lower fuel prices I really don't think anyone is going to be converting.

The new line really isn't about adding more capacity (according to the study), but how much faster the trains of CN will travel and how much money that will make CN, without taking into account the cost of upgrading the new line...

[GGT]

Ag, we asked you about the train vs truck impact pages ago. :bored:

I'm not going to wade thru that pdf or your analysis of the analysis....just to discuss infrastructure and NIMBYism.

Also, using current fuel costs won't bode well long term, since the "price" of oil can't be calculated in a tidy table.

[Agamemnus]

Ag, we asked you about the train vs truck impact pages ago. :bored:
Of course, the pollution spewed by trucks is more than that spewed by trains, unless you factor in the cost to build and maintain the train infrastructure, and the cost to build the overpasses, and the cost of cars idling waiting for trains to pass, and the fact that you need to plant more trees to mitigate with emissions near new or expanded rail line, while the highway already (presumably) has trees..

My contention is that the right question to ask is whether we can increase cargo volume by simply reducing the amount of trains trying to pass through, and I say (for the 100000th time), emphatically:

YES WE CAN!



:mad::up:

[GGT]

Of course, the pollution spewed by trucks is more than that spewed by trains, unless you factor in the cost to build and maintain the train infrastructure, and the cost to build the overpasses, and the cost of cars idling waiting for trains to pass, and the fact that you need to plant more trees to mitigate with emissions near new or expanded rail line, while the highway already (presumably) has trees..

My contention is that the right question to ask is whether we can increase cargo volume by simply reducing the amount of trains trying to pass through, and I say (for the 100000th time), emphatically:

YES WE CAN!



:mad::up:

*picture Thomas the Tank Engine going in circles* :haha:

Yes, we can increase volume of cargo being moved, if CN buys the rail, to use the bypass, which would reduce the number of engines passing thru Chicago thus improving their time table.

[GGT]

ok Minx is making me crack up now :haha: but what he said is like the evolution of moving cargo. Once they moved live animals, until they invented refrigerated containers. Once they used to pack and unpack trucks, load and unload trains, until they invented the container that could go from truck bed to rail platform with just a lift mechanism.

Would be cool if containers had 2 sets of wheels, to go from road to rail and back again! Like transformers!

[Agamemnus]

*picture Thomas the Tank Engine going in circles* :haha:

Yes, we can increase volume of cargo being moved, if CN buys the rail, to use the bypass, which would reduce the number of engines passing thru Chicago thus improving their time table.

Or, they can just agree with all the other companies to reduce their collective train shipments by 7%, and increase their collective speed by 14%... cheaper and easier, if everyone agreed not to cheat.

[Dreadnaught]

...and collectively agree to increase their rates by +7% to make up for the lost revenue of carrying less?

Besides the fact that it's impractical and bad, it's also illegal.

[LittleFuzzy]

Or, they can just agree with all the other companies to reduce their collective train shipments by 7%, and increase their collective speed by 14%... cheaper and easier, if everyone agreed not to cheat.

So. . . they could do that, or they could divert 7% of the traffic along the underutilized line bypassing Chicago completely, increase their collective speed by that same 14%, and increase their profit margin. Ag, you're being even more ridiculous than normal. The track is already there. They're not talking about new infrastructure, they're talking about running trains on unused capacity. Congestion is inefficient, but so is a mostly unused track.

[Agamemnus]

...and collectively agree to increase their rates by +7% to make up for the lost revenue of carrying less?

No.. their rates will increase, but only because of faster service.



So. . . they could do that, or they could divert 7% of the traffic along the underutilized line bypassing Chicago completely, increase their collective speed by that same 14%, and increase their profit margin. Ag, you're being even more ridiculous than normal. The track is already there. They're not talking about new infrastructure, they're talking about running trains on unused capacity. Congestion is inefficient, but so is a mostly unused track.

CN is getting $54m per year on this deal, assuming that 25% of the benefits of the new track goes to its customers. (the analysis that was commissioned says 50%)

They paid $300m for the EJ&E line. They have to cough up about $75 million for overpasses. They have to upgrade the EJ&E line to make it handle CN's traffic, and they have to mitigate noise. There's no telling how much the lawyers representing the residents will make them pay.

Then there's the environmental issues I already mentioned that is a huge cost to the residents.

It's a losing deal for CN.

The other rail co's bear none of these costs and none of these risks, but their speed will increase dramatically.

So why again does this make sense, for anyone? Looking for a fresh argument here against "simply reducing the amount of trains"... don't make me copy and paste again or I will throw the book at you! :bored:

[Dreadnaught]

Their rates will also increase because they are artificially holding back cargo that they were previously able to carry...and that they are able to carry now, especially by expanding into this existing rail bypass.

Plus, again, it's basically illegal for them to make these kinds of agreements.

What exactly are you arguing here now? It really doesn't make any sense. I'm holding off on reading that report, as you're making less an less sense on the surface level.

[CitizenCain]

<sigh>

Here you go, Aga.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v626/Zhucov/Fail-Cat.jpg

(Only because I can't find my sweet face palm images).

[Agamemnus]

Their rates will also increase because they are artificially holding back cargo that they were previously able to carry...and that they are able to carry now, especially by expanding into this existing rail bypass.

Plus, again, it's basically illegal for them to make these kinds of agreements.


Why?


What exactly are you arguing here now? It really doesn't make any sense.
The same thing I said in my first post.

[LittleFuzzy]

Why?

Any attempt at fixing those other things is going to fail, even without a Commons problem, without including an agreement on prices that would ensure worthwhile profits for all the companies. You do grasp why that sort of price-fixing is illegal, right?

[Agamemnus]

Any attempt at fixing those other things is going to fail, even without a Commons problem, without including an agreement on prices that would ensure worthwhile profits for all the companies. You do grasp why that sort of price-fixing is illegal, right?

Price fixing is only illegal if those companies do it without the government's blessing and signature.

[LittleFuzzy]

Price fixing is only illegal if those companies do it without the government's blessing and signature.

Put more accurately, only the government can price fix. And it doesn't want to in this field, on the reasonable basis that it used to and never managed to do so in a way that didn't fail miserably.

[oldmunchkin]

I'm sorry...I still don't see the problem here. Trains are going to increase traffic on an already existing track? Sheesh guys it happens every day. So flickin' what if its Chicago? Are the people there better than the rest of us? We went from 3 trains a day to over 30...and now they are triple-maining the lines, meaning they can run 75 to 90 trains a day. So flickin' what?

[Agamemnus]

Put more accurately, only the government can price fix. And it doesn't want to in this field, on the reasonable basis that it used to and never managed to do so in a way that didn't fail miserably.
The way government mandated price fixing works is by the government forcing a company to set price to a multiple of cost...

And it doesn't want to in this field
The government is not an entity with desires.

[LittleFuzzy]

The way government mandated price fixing works is by the government forcing a company to set price to a multiple of cost...


Hey Ag, go do everyone a favor and do a bit of actual research on the history of US rail regulation in the last 50 years, with particular attention paid to pricing.

The government is not an entity with desires.

No, it's multiple entities with desires. The key ones here are a couple of bureaucracies and Congress. And the majority attitude of Congress, which has the ultimate say via the Interstate Commerce clause, has been clear and unchanging for some time.

[Dreadnaught]

Price fixing is only illegal if those companies do it without the government's blessing and signature.
While I echo Fuzzy, please explain why the government should artificially raise prices and decrease capacity? What possible benefit is there to that when there is an existing in-use rail line that can free-up trackage within Chicago?

[CitizenCain]

While I echo Fuzzy, please explain why the government should artificially raise prices and decrease capacity? What possible benefit is there to that when there is an existing in-use rail line that can free-up trackage within Chicago?

Step 1) Happier yuppies in Illinois.
Step 2) ??????
Step 3) Profit!