Re: Union Station
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:16 am
Givethismanabeer, yeah my brother worked his entire life at BNSF. He just retired last year after 42 years there.
Thanks for the reassurance about safety. I just worry because you see these stories about oil spills on train cars recently around the country.
I agree with your comment about the need for a 435 bypass rail equivalent around the city. It seems to me that it would be in the best interest of the country and state for the federal government to provide infastructure funding to build these types of rail lines around metro areas, and new switchyards in more remote places on the edges of cities for safety purposes; to move freight faster, expand capacity, and free up intercity rail lines for commuter trains. I don't know how this would work. Loans perhaps, or the feds build the capacity and turn it over to railroads in some sort of shared ownership and have them maintain the lines. This type of arrangement might negotiate freeing up intercity lines for public transit purposes.
It also seems necessary because railroads like BNSF are shipping so much coal through the city, and more and more oil is also being shipped by rail in lieu of actual pipelines that have yet to be approved.
The other thing is movement of nuclear waste. I recall seeing some report awhile back about the controversy of shipping all nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. While it hasn't been approved by the federal government, one of the concerns was that much of it would have to be moved through metropolitan areas. I think the same report mentioned that the public wasn't aware of the dangers of toxic waste and other chemical that were being shipped through cities already.
Thus, my concern about the lack of bypass rail routes around cities.
As you are probably well aware, many former railyards in cities have been abandoned completely, and are being repurposed for commercial and residential development. They are often in prime locations. New York City has redeveloped a couple of former railyards.
Thanks for the reassurance about safety. I just worry because you see these stories about oil spills on train cars recently around the country.
I agree with your comment about the need for a 435 bypass rail equivalent around the city. It seems to me that it would be in the best interest of the country and state for the federal government to provide infastructure funding to build these types of rail lines around metro areas, and new switchyards in more remote places on the edges of cities for safety purposes; to move freight faster, expand capacity, and free up intercity rail lines for commuter trains. I don't know how this would work. Loans perhaps, or the feds build the capacity and turn it over to railroads in some sort of shared ownership and have them maintain the lines. This type of arrangement might negotiate freeing up intercity lines for public transit purposes.
It also seems necessary because railroads like BNSF are shipping so much coal through the city, and more and more oil is also being shipped by rail in lieu of actual pipelines that have yet to be approved.
The other thing is movement of nuclear waste. I recall seeing some report awhile back about the controversy of shipping all nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. While it hasn't been approved by the federal government, one of the concerns was that much of it would have to be moved through metropolitan areas. I think the same report mentioned that the public wasn't aware of the dangers of toxic waste and other chemical that were being shipped through cities already.
Thus, my concern about the lack of bypass rail routes around cities.
As you are probably well aware, many former railyards in cities have been abandoned completely, and are being repurposed for commercial and residential development. They are often in prime locations. New York City has redeveloped a couple of former railyards.