Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, Washington May 11, 2012

Comments concerning the April 16, 2012 Notice of Application: Gateway Pacific Terminal major development permit, variance and shoreline substantial development permit

Communitywise Bellingham (CWB) has provided your office our briefing paper to the Bellingham City Council under separate cover. That submission also included an annotated bibliography and an independent transportation consultant’s review of the railroad corridor through Bellingham upon which our findings stand. URL's to these attachments are included below.

CWB claims no special expertise in transportation planning itself, but provides these comments as part of our role to "inform the conversation." Our primary mission is to research facts and present them to the community in order to advance understanding of potential impacts on Bellingham as well as what might be done to eliminate or to mitigate them.

We believe the finding that there is insufficient capacity through Bellingham for GPT as planned has been well established by WSDOT and the transportation experts. What we add to the conversation here is the common sense notion that if the new railroad yard at Custer is directly related to the project and therefore included the permit application, then additional Whatcom County infrastructure that is essential to allow the planned volume of trains to actually reach that yard should also be included in the permit application.

The South Bellingham siding extension has been identified as the preferred infrastructure solution that would enable the planned volume of trains to reach the Custer facility. That siding would have major impacts that threaten long established community plans and investments for connecting Bellingham with the Bay. We have included URL's below to a map of that siding on Bellingham’s waterfront and an overview discussion of impacts and mitigation opportunities keyed to the map.

The Transit Safety Management report offers no reason to believe that there is any alternative solution available. WSDOT recently applied nearly $100 million in windfall TARP monies to projects pulled in whole from these same WSDOT plans. The siding plan is essentially shovel ready except for an EIS. We believe that complete infrastructure plans to allow the additional 18 trains a day through the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck need to be included in the permit application.

Assurances that this siding will not be needed or that capacity problems can somehow be taken care of later may be put forward. In light of the compelling evidence that the South Bellingham siding

extension is required, any such suggestions would be meaningless without a formal independent capacity analysis of a detailed alternative proposal.

We understand that BNSF has not announced specific plans. The WSDOT documents show there were several minor adjustments in siding location considered and rejected as being inferior to this location. It is the only siding that has been preliminarily engineered, budgeted, and included ever since as the preferred solution in planning and simulations. Note that even all the rejected siding locations included major infrastructure construction and concomitant environmental impacts in or close to Bellingham.

As close observers of the public process, we have been pleased with the professional manner in which all the Agencies have dispatched their responsibilities. We see no fault by the Agencies in this case. It is reasonable to assume that SSA Marine had no knowledge of this siding requirement and that BNSF thought of the need as simply "business as usual.” That being said, the omission represents a serious defect in the current permit application that needs to be corrected. If left unaddressed it could lead to future litigation that would slow the process to no one's benefit.

BNSF should be asked to submit detail plans for all infrastructure required in Whatcom County to insure delivery of the additional 18 trains a day through the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck. That information is needed as a supplement to the permit application.

Thank you for consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Shannon Wright Executive Director

Links

Bellingham City Council Briefing http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/CWB-RR-Impact-Briefing-to- Bham-CC-Final.pdf Annotated Bibliography http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/BibliographyWithExtracts.pdf Transit Safety Management Capacity Study http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bellingham-coal-trains-final- 022312.pdf South Bellingham Siding Map http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Waterfron-Impacts-Map.pdf Discussion Keyed to Map Locations http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Map-Impacts-Text.pdf From: Tyler Schroeder To: Stephanie Drake Date: 5/11/2012 7:57 AM Subject: Fwd: Followup - Bellingham City Council Breifing Attachments: CWB RR Impact Briefing.pdf; CWB Briefing BibliographyWithExtracts.pdf; Bell ingham coal trains final.pdf

Here is a report that should be put on the website under the NOA section.

Thanks,

Tyler

Tyler R. Schroeder Planning Manager Phone: (360) 676-6907 ext. 50202 Fax: (360)738-2525 Email: [email protected] Address: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Dr. Bellingham, WA 98225

>>> Jack Delay 5/10/2012 3:05 PM >>> Hello Tyler

Patricia will be able to drop off a copy of the complete presentation to the City Council at your office later this afternoon. I have attached electronic copies of the three documents which we believe are of interest at this time. They will form the basis for a comment we are drafting about the permit applications and the infrastructure construction required in Whatcom County to operate the terminal. I have CC'd the other agencies as a courtesy.

The Briefing paper presents the key findings. The Bibliography expands on the references in the briefing with annotated pages from the original WSDOT and other source documents. The TSM coal train report explains the principles of capacity determination and concludes in the last two pages that the findings of the WSDOT documents we cite remain valid.

We asked TSM for the comprehensive explanation of how capacity is determined because we fully expect BNSF to say something along the lines "don't worry, we'll figure it out" or that the all work at Custer will somehow help. The well developed principles explained in that document show that the past WSDOT analysis, in which BNSF played an advisory role, are correct and that no improvements beyond the ends of the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck will have significant impact on capacity.

--- Jack Delay, President Communitywise Bellingham Informing the conversation.

CommunitywiseBellingham.org Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

Communitywise Bellingham Briefing Presented to the Bellingham City Council

Gateway Pacific Terminal Train Impacts on the Bellingham Waterfront

May 7, 2012

Background

In the fall of 2011 Communitywise Bellingham (CWB) asked individual Bellingham City Council members to identify what aspects of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project needed clarifying information. The top issues for City Council members were 1) economic implications—the subject of CWB’s first report to the City Council—and 2) potential train traffic impacts in the City.1

In response to these issues, CWB began reviewing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) documents and other official reports on train traffic and rail infrastructure through Bellingham. We discovered that the rail section between Bow and Ferndale will form a major bottleneck for the increased train traffic that is needed for GPT to operate. The preferred plan to address this bottleneck is the construction of a new siding extending a second rail line along a major section of the Bellingham waterfront. This need for a new siding came as a surprise to CWB. This component of the project is not found in GPT documents nor has Burlington North Santa Fe (BNSF) disclosed it. This missing component was found “hiding in plain sight” within WSDOT studies and technical appendices.”2

In order to be certain that this information was not out of date and determine if newer technologies for managing train traffic, like Positive Train Control, could be employed to avoid the new siding,3 CWB commissioned a complete review by Transit Safety Management (TSM): “Potential Local Direct Effects Of Increased Coal Train Traffic On BNSF Railway Through Bellingham.”4

Because of the major waterfront impacts of the new siding and huge associated mitigation costs, CWB commissioned a second TSM study to evaluate the BNSF public statement that an alternative inland route was “impractical”: “Coal Train Routing Alternatives In Skagit and Whatcom.”5

These reports present in full the railroad operational and technical principles governing, 1) analysis of train routes, 2) increasing a segment’s capacity and 3) locating sidings. The two reports apply the latest State and County data to these principles in forming their conclusions.

1 The PFM report is available online at communitywisebellingham.org. 2 Easily accessible online documents from WSDOT describe the siding in ways that are not obvious to the casual reader, such as milepost numbers. 3 Positive Train Control is a new system required on combined freight and passenger routes by 2015. Some have suggested new controls would allow “fleeting” of trains or other ways to avoid building the siding. The TSM report found such suggestions to be false. 4 TSM is a national transportation consultant with extensive experience in Washington including projects for WSDOT, BNSF and Sound Transit. 5 Both TSM reports are available at www.communitywisebellingham.org.

KEY FINDINGS

1. Gateway Pacific Terminal will require increasing rail capacity in the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck.

Washington State has studied this situation and has established the capacity for rail traffic through Bellingham at 14 to 15 trains per day.6 Current train traffic uses most of that capacity.7 GPT would add 18 trains per day.8 Capacity issues are well understood.9 GPT cannot operate without construction of new rail capacity in this corridor

Eighteen trains a day is taken as the level of GPT traffic for important reasons. GPT’s Project Information Document and permit application both declare the intended export volume at full capacity to require 18 additional trains a day (16 for coal exports).10 By law, the applicant’s stated plans must reflect their intentions, and they govern the review process as well as Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Given the growing coal export market and the expanding Powder River Basin mining operations, there is no reason to believe GPT will choose to operate at less than full capacity. This additional rail capacity is necessary just for the 10 additional trains a day for Phase 1.

2. A siding along Bellingham’s waterfront is the preferred solution.

Numerous Department of Transportation (WSDOT) studies conducted in concert with BNSF and transportation consultants have examined the Bow to Ferndale bottleneck problem and settled on a preferred solution: Extend the existing South Bellingham siding along the waterfront.11 This solution is driven by the fact that Bellingham is in a unique position; it is at the middle of the capacity bottleneck between the Bow and Ferndale sidings. Building a new siding at the middle of this bottleneck is the only way to double the capacity. This siding extension is the only option for which preliminary engineering and budgets have been prepared.12 It has been used every time simulations are performed for transit studies, most recently in 2011.13

6 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study; Task 3 – Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints, Pages 14, 18 and 52. 7 Bellingham Herald, May 18, 2011, “BNSF says Bellingham is only practical route to Cherry Point cargo terminal.” 8 Permit filed with Whatcom County, see Q & A section for complete discussion. 9 The Transit Safety Management study released with this report includes a complete capacity primer. 10 Current permit application PID, Pages 4-55, Table 4-5. 11 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan, page 4-26, 4-27. 12 Whatcom Council of Governments, Seattle. WA – Vancouver, B.C. Cross-border Freight Rail Improvement Study, Table 5-2 page 5-4. 13 Whatcom Council of Governments, Seattle. WA – Vancouver, B.C. Diesel Multiple Unit Feasibility Study, Table 6, Pages 5-4. BNSF has said an alternate inland route to service GPT is impractical and will not be considered.14 This leaves the Bellingham siding extension as the preferred option for GPT to operate. Projects that are developed to the same extent as the Bellingham siding is in state documents are regularly implemented with little modification as the nearly $!00 million of windfall TARP money spent recently shows.

3. A Waterfront siding will affect access to parks, recreation areas and businesses.

The new siding would be constructed by extending the South Bellingham siding from Fairhaven to Downtown.15 Building this second track along this entire stretch of waterfront on the shoreline side of the main track will have many impacts. It would necessitate permanent closure of railroad crossings in three locations:

• Bayview Drive access to Boulevard Park (vehicle and pedestrian) • South Bay Trail access to Boulevard Park (pedestrian) • Wharf Street access to the south end of the former Georgia-Pacific site and the planned waterfront park (vehicle and pedestrian)

The siding may also require closure of the Port of Bellingham dock and commercial boat haul-out facility adjacent to the Padden Creek Lagoon.

Elimination of parking and all vehicular access to Boulevard Park will impact park visitors from Bellingham and the County. Loss of emergency services access would limit permissible park activities. Siding operations will make the problems of increased frequency for crossing closures at both Post Point and the Roeder sections of the waterfront worse. Because the train waiting in the siding must immediately accelerate from a stop, closures will be longer in duration and occur in rapid succession. Backed up traffic may not clear between closures.

With the Ferry Terminal, shipyards, boat launching ramps, restaurants, waterfront businesses, parks and other recreational areas—all subject to reduced access—there will be many unpredictable impacts. A map has been included that will help identify the potential impacts around the waterfront. It also includes a variety of ideas about opportunities to mitigate the overall impacts.

4. Gateway Pacific Terminal train traffic will impact future passenger rail and local business uses.

It should be noted that the need to build this long siding is specifically related to the new GPT freight traffic. A 2011 Whatcom Council of Governments study reviewed by BNSF, established that Bellingham

14 The TSM study released with this briefing also concludes the route is impractical. We agree with other county residents that there are many potential factors that will determine the final GPT route and siding addition. Non-binding BNSF statements are no replacement for a detailed rail plan to deliver coal to GPT. 15 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan, page 4-26, 4-27. could add at least three additional passenger round trips without this siding.16 This included a third mid-day Amtrak round trip to Vancouver plus both morning and evening interurban round trips connecting with Sound Transit. In this same document, both the authors and BNSF indicated that the addition of GPT traffic could change that conclusion. Capacity analysis shows that even after building this new siding, the additional 18 GPT trains will make this segment even more congested than it is today.

BNSF's recent announcement that they need to route three tracks under the new $40 million Cornwall bridge comes as no surprise. Siding plans call for bringing it almost to Central Avenue (to attain maximum length) which requires 2 tracks. The desire to add a 3rd track reflects the need for capacity options in the future because GPT traffic itself will use more than the capacity added by the new siding. BNSF may already have additional capacity plans or they may need to do more analysis, but this would give flexibility for either another siding or a second main track as possible solutions.

WSDOT has noted that the Class 1 Railroads like BNSF have adopted a business model that promotes longer and more frequent point-to-point traffic as being more profitable.17 They are using pricing to discourage other uses, so local business uses of rail capacity will not be as viable as in the past. Their reports also note this higher frequency and longer traffic represent impacts on communities that should be a policy concern for the State.

Conclusions

The goal of presenting this information is to ensure that the public and local jurisdictions are aware of these well-established but little understood facts. It has been easy for policy makers to read the abstract concept of a “siding extension” and not realize what it really entails. That is where we began with our research.

The impacts of the new siding required for an additional 18 trains per day to GPT are very significant. The siding is clearly necessary for the terminal to operate as specified in GPT’s plans. As such, we believe the siding should have been included in the permit application. At a minimum, the City and the EIS agencies must act to ensure that this Bellingham siding—which may be the single largest cause of off-site GPT impacts—is detailed in the same manner as the project’s other railroad construction and included in the scope of the EIS.18

Additionally, the question of who will pay for the mitigation measures related to this siding must be addressed. These costs could be substantial, and taxpayers could be asked to foot the bill.

16 Whatcom Council of Governments, Seattle, WA – Vancouver, B.C. Diesel Multiple Unit Feasibility Study, Page 29. 17 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study, Addendum to Interim Report #1, July 2006. 18 The EIS agencies are Whatcom County, WA Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of Engineers. CWB could not hope to identify all impacts or envision all opportunities to mitigate them. We do not present our accompanying map and discussion as either proscriptive or exhaustive. We do hope that it will help spark community discussion about the best ways to protect our decades-long achievements and continuing plans to "Connect Bellingham with the Bay."

Annotated Bibliography with Key Extracted Pages Studies Relevant to GPT’s Impact on Bellingham Rail and Waterfront

Note that many of the WSDOT Documents from 2006 reference Amtrak Cascades in their titles. This is because funding came through the passenger rail program. The bulk of this major 2006 effort involved the overall freight rail system and in fact one of the recommendations of professional transportation policy consultants to this effort was that the state needed to start identifying what part of projects under the passenger program actually benefitted freight rail and to insure the benefitting parties (BNSF) participate by paying their fair share.

WSDOT, Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study, Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints - Technical Memorandum. Pages 14, 18, 52 Establishes that capacity through Bellingham is 14.4 trains per day, that the South Bellingham siding is too short for most freight trains, and that extending that siding would double that capacity.

WSDOT, Washington State Long-Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades, February 2006 Chapter Five: Amtrak Cascades Needed Infrastructure Improvements, Page 5-9. Establishes that extending the South Bellingham siding is required for increased capacity. This is a frequently read document but it does not spell out what the siding extension actually entails: building a second track next to the main track on the shoreline side of the waterfront from Padden Lagoon to Downtown. Our consultant informed us of technical appendices with actual descriptions and decision making details. These are not described or published online by WSDOT and must be requested on CD.

WSDOT, Amtrak Cascades Operating and Capital Plan, February 2006, Appendix B. Page B-36 to B-38 Describes details of the railroad in the Bellingham section, including the problem with the South Bellingham siding as well as soil stability issues and monitoring near the Airport (milepost 100).

WSDOT, Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan February 2006, Chapter Four: Capital Plan. Page 4-26, 4-27 Detailed description of extending the siding from Amtrak station along waterfront to the GP site, including closing grade crossings to Boulevard Park and Wharf Street. Explains why other options like extending the siding south or building it further north will not work.

WSDOT, Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan February 2006, Chapter Two: Methodology. Page 2-4, 5 Description of actual traffic - data provided by BNSF in 2006 (different from many claims).

Whatcom Council of Governments, Seattle, WA – Vancouver, B.C. Diesel Multiple Unit Feasibility Study, 2011. Pages 28, 29 Establishes that the Bellingham siding extension is not needed for major passenger improvements (3 additional round trips). Both BNSF and the authors make clear that if GPT traffic materializes that conclusion needs to be re-evaluated. Shows siding still under active consideration.

WSDOT, Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study, Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints Second Interim Report, 2006 Pages ES-3, ES-4 Recommends that cost benefit analysis of who is getting gains needs to be done for fair free market outcomes of who pays. Page 1-3 Discusses negative impacts of longer heavier trains including grade crossing durations and more (and more frequent) maintenance. Pages 1-4, 1-5 Notes that continuous flow of slow coal trains headed east from PRB have made it “virtually impossible” to schedule time-sensitive traffic.

WSDOT, Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study, Addendum to Interim Report #1, July 2006 Page 2 Discusses changing business model and pricing as a tool to discourage local traffic. Page 13 Objects to fact out WSDOT Passenger Rail Program does not attempt to break out freight-rail benefits of projects. Pages 16 Strong policy recommendations calling for partnership with Class 1 railroad (BNSF) so meaning there is a system of allocating costs and having the benefitting party pay their share.

WSDOT, Amtrak Cascades Detail Infrastructure Capital Plans 2004 and 2006 Pages from these two years of project listings show estimated cost from details of BNSF preliminary engineering for the Bellingham siding extension. No other Bellingham siding option has ever been made ready for funding like this.

July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study Task 3 – Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints

• Single Track Operation Interbay-Everett Junction. Overtaking moves can be made on this segment of track. However, if overtake meets are not coordinated properly, resulting train delays may be extensive because of the extended distance (up to 12 miles) required for each overtake due to the absence of crossovers on the double track segments. (See Figure 3.2, Locations 17, 18 and 19.)

• Everett Junction-PA Junction. The 2.5 miles of single track between PA Junction and Everett Junction, and the 25 mph speed limit, restricts the capacity of the entire line to 45 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Location 21.)

Everett, Washington-New Westminster, British Columbia

The capacity of the Everett, Washington-New Westminster, BC route is 7 TPD, and is limited by the running time between the siding at Swift and Thornton Yard and the assumption that Canada Customs will continue to stop northward trains at White Rock, British Columbia, for inspection and that U.S. customs will continue holding trains on the main track at Blaine, Washington, before allowing them to proceed at 5 mph through the VACIS (Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System) at Swift. Canadian stops on the main track at White Rock occur randomly.

BNSF has begun originating and terminating trains in the CN Thornton Yard in Surrey, BC. This operational change increases the running time between sidings to 2 hours 5 minutes. If a stop on the main track for Customs at White Rock is assumed, the practical capacity of the line is reduced to 5.8 TPD.

Individual segments of the route have greater practical capacities:

• Between Everett (PA Junction) and Burlington, the capacity is 24 TPD, and is limited by the running time from Delta Junction (including 10 mph operation into and out of Delta Yard) to English siding.

• Between Burlington and Ferndale, capacity is limited to 14.4 TPD by the running time between the Bow and Ferndale sidings. The intervening South Bellingham siding does not accommodate the typical train length on the line.

The major capacity restraints in each of the identified segments are summarized below. Refer to Appendix A: Summary of Identified Capacity Constraints for a more detailed description.

Everett-Burlington Identified capacity restrictions in this segment include:

• PA Junction-Delta Junction. The line has a capacity of 24 TPD because of low-speed (15 to 25 mph) operations over 3.8 miles of single track. (See Figure 3.2, Location 22.)

July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study Task 3 – Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints

Main line capacity north of Delta Yard is further limited by 15 mph speed restriction around the curve at Delta Junction and a 10 mph speed restriction across Snohomish River Bridge just north of Delta Junction. The capacity on the main line past Delta Yard is limited to 14 through trains per day. The yard can originate or depart an additional 16 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Locations 22 and 46.)

Marysville The 20 mph speed limit for freight trains on the Steamboat Slough and Ebey Slough bridges south of Marysville limits the capacity on the line to 24 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Location 23.)

English-Bow The capacity of this segment is 48 trains per day, affected by the running time between the sidings at Mt. Vernon and Bow, if the trains involved fit in the siding at Stanwood and Mt. Vernon. However, typical trains are longer than the sidings at Stanwood and Mt. Vernon, making the capacity limitation 16 trains per day between Bow and English. (See Figure 3.2, Location 24.)

Bow-Swift The capacity of this segment is 14.4 trains per day, affected by the running time between the sidings at Bow and Ferndale. The South Bellingham siding is generally too short to accommodate most of the trains that use this line. (See Figure 3.2, Location 25.)

Swift-CN Thornton Yard (Surrey, British Columbia) The capacity between Swift and Thornton Yard (the northern origin and destination of most freight traffic on the Everett-New Westminster route) is affected by running time between meeting points (the siding at Swift and Thornton Yard) and by U.S. and Canada customs procedures. If trains run between Swift and Thornton Yard unaffected by customs procedures, capacity is 12 trains per day, significantly affected by the 5 mph speed limit for southward trains north of Swift (for movement though the VACIS), the 21 mph speed limit at White Rock, and the 15 mph speed limit on the Nicomekl River bridge. (See Figure 3.2, Location 26.)

U.S. Customs inspects southward trains at Swift. The duration of the inspection may affect the capacity in either direction because the meeting point may not be available for a subsequent pair of trains, therefore reducing capacity.

Northward trains stop at Swift to close and seal the doors of all empty cars. If the duration of this activity is similar to that of the U.S. customs inspection of the southward train on the siding, there is no capacity effect. Canada customs periodically stops northward trains at White Rock for further inspection. When that occurs, capacity is reduced by the stopped train. If each northward train is stopped by Canada Customs, the capacity is reduced to eight trains per day.

A-8

July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study Task 3 – Rail Capacity Needs and Constraints

• Delta Yard. The manual hand throw switches at Delta Yard and the need to double trains together on the main line when leaving the yard further reduces capacity on this segment of track. (See Figure 3.2, Location 46.)

• Delta Junction Speed Restriction. Main line capacity north of Delta Yard is further limited by a 15 mph speed restriction around the curve at Delta Junction and a 10 mph speed restriction across Snohomish River Bridge just north of Delta Junction. The capacity on the main line through Delta Yard is limited to 14 through trains per day. The yard can originate or depart an additional 16 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Location 46.)

• Marysville Speed Restrictions. The 20 mph speed limit for freight trains on the Steamboat Slough and Ebey Slough bridges south of Marysville limits the capacity on the line to 24 TPD. (See Figure 3.2, Location 23.)

• English-Bow capacity is limited to 16 trains per day as the result of the running time between these sidings. Capacity could be increased to 48 trains per day if the sidings at Stanwood and Mt. Vernon can be lengthened to fit longer trains. (See Figure 3.2, Location 24.)

Burlington-Ferndale The capacity between Bow and Ferndale sidings is 14.4 trains per day. If the South Bellingham siding is lengthened to accommodate the long trains that use this line, capacity can be increased to roughly twice that number.

Ferndale-New Westminster, British Columbia The capacity on this segment is limited by the running time between Swift and Thornton Yard and by U.S. and Canada customs procedures. The capacity is constrained by the 5 mph speed limit though the VACIS for southbound trains at Swift, the 21 mph speed limit at White Rock, and the 15 mph speed limit on the Nicomekl River bridge. (See Figure 3.2, Location 26.)

U.S. Custom inspections may affect the capacity in either direction since Swift is used as a meeting siding. Canada customs periodically stops northbound trains at White Rock for further inspection. When that occurs, capacity on the line is further reduced by the stopped train.

Vancouver, Washington-Pasco, Washington

The capacity of the Vancouver-Pasco route is limited to 36 TPD between Vancouver and Wishram. Capacity is restricted by the 20-minute running time between the end of double track at McLaughlin and the siding at Washougal, and between Bingen and North Dalles sidings. (See Figure 3.2, Location 27.)

Between Wishram and Pasco the capacity is estimated at 51 TPD if trains are restricted to 7,000 feet. If all the trains on this line are longer than 7,000 feet, then the capacity of the line is reduced to 28 TPD versus the estimated 36 TPD between Vancouver and Wishram.

15 geometry in this location (due to the terrain) does not allow trains to travel at high speeds. The estimated construction cost of this project is $147.8 million. Bellingham Siding Extension (rail milepost 92.2 to 97.9) The purpose of this project is to allow passenger and freight trains to pass each other. The current siding at this location is not long enough to accommodate most freight trains. If this siding were not extended and two trains were traveling towards this location on the same track, one of them would have to wait at the first available siding (Bow or Ferndale if those sidings are not occupied by another train) to ensure that the other train could pass. Depending on the location of the nearest available siding, a train could feasibly wait as long as eighty minutes until the oncoming train passes. By having a siding at this location, it shortens the length (and therefore time) between sidings. This project increases capacity and reliability. The estimated construction cost of this project is $102.6 million. Bellingham GP Upgrade (rail milepost 96 to 97) The existing main line located at the Georgia Pacific plant in Bellingham will be rehabilitated. The purpose of this rehabilitation is to improve the track so that it can handle higher speeds. This improvement is needed because the current condition of the existing track does not meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standards for increased speeds. This project will result in increased passenger and freight rail speeds, which will improve service and increase capacity and reliability. The estimated construction cost of this project is $2.3 million. This project is listed in the “2003 Legislative Funding Package,” but will require additional funding beyond the $200,000 allocated by the state legislature. Burlington to Bellingham High-Speed Track (rail milepost 72.2 to 86.5) This project entails construction of fourteen miles of high-speed track and associated facilities. The purpose of the project is to allow passenger trains to operate at 110 mph, providing part of the travel time reduction needed between Seattle and Vancouver, BC to achieve WSDOT’s service goal. This project is needed because the current physical condition of the track and the current track geometry in this location (due to the terrain) does not allow trains to travel at high speeds. The estimated construction cost of this project is $408.5 million. Bow to Samish Siding Extension (rail milepost 81 to 83.5) The purpose of this project is to allow passenger and freight trains to pass each other. The current siding at Samish is not long enough to accommodate most freight trains. If this siding were not extended and two trains were traveling towards this location on the same track, one of them would have to wait at the first available siding (existing Bow or Ferndale if not occupied by another train) to ensure that the other train could pass.

Washington State Long-Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades February 2006 Chapter Five: Amtrak Cascades Needed Infrastructure Improvements Page 5-9 flat, under a highway and onto the west shore of Samish Bay. At the south end of the Samish storage track, the hillside becomes a cliff. The railroad passes through a short rock cut with the highway passing over the outcropping about 100 feet above. A storage track, formerly a siding, extends along the east side of the line for about 3,500 feet in the small amount of flat terrain between the rock cut and Tunnel 18. The highway diverges to the east then returns and crosses about 120 feet above the railroad as it passes through Tunnel 18.

The railroad follows the base of the cliff along the east shore of Samish Bay. The highway is parallel and about 160 feet above the railroad. The top of the cliff is about one thousand feet above the water, where the slope reduces and continues to the top of Chuckanut Mountain at an elevation of about 1,800 feet.

After passing about a mile of beach at an elevation just above high tide level, the line begins to climb the face of the cliff, gaining about sixty feet in elevation, turning a short distance east of the shoreline, and passing through narrow rock cuts. The slope along the east side of the line diminishes to steep hillside and there are several points of land extending west of the line, separating Samish Bay from Chuckanut Bay. In this area, the line passes through two tunnels.

The line returns to the shoreline along Chuckanut Bay and the slope of the adjoining hillside increases to again become cliffs. The adjacent highway is about 200 feet above the track. Just south of South Bellingham, the line turns toward the west, crosses Chuckanut Bay on a 2,000-foot causeway and 200-foot bridge, passes through a 750-foot tunnel, crosses a short causeway and passes through a rock cut, and follows the east shoreline of Bellingham Bay to South Bellingham.

South Bellingham (Distance 280 Rail Milepost 93) A 6,300-foot CTC siding extends along the west side of the line north of the tunnel and rock cut. The useful length is about 5,200 feet because of street crossings at the north end of the siding. The passenger station is located east of the main track at the north side of the siding. There is a short platform along the siding for occasional use if a train cannot stop at the main track platform. The Alaska Marine Highway ferry terminal is located adjacent to the track on the west side, across from the station.

Just north of the station and north end of the siding, the line crosses a timber trestle across a small bay at the outlet of Padden Creek and continues to follow the east coastline of Bellingham Bay. There is a commercial boat manufacturer on the east side of the line that moves boats across the line to and from the bay at a private crossing on the north shore

February 2006 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Capital Plan Page B-36 Appendix B: Description of Current Rail Line of the creek. The slope of the hillside increases to a bluff along the east side of the line. The shoreline is historic commercial waterfront that is now parkland.

Bellingham (Distance 283 Rail Milepost 97 to Rail Milepost 95=Rail Milepost 96) The bluff on the east side of the line diverges away from the track and reduces to a moderate slope near rail milepost 96.3. Between rail milepost 96.7 and rail milepost 97, Georgia Pacific Pulp and Paper Plant industrial facilities are located close to both sides of the main track, including tank car unloading facilities and a close-clearance driveway for heavy trucks. There is generally a guard rail between the driveway and the main track, but at one point it is possible for trucks to foul the main track while backing into or pulling away from a loading dock. Because of the hazards, the speed limit for all trains is twenty miles per hour. A plan for a line change to bypass the plant was developed, but the track geometry available between existing structures was poor. In 2002, Georgia Pacific closed most of the plant. The remaining functions of the plant are being evaluated. There is a possibility that the plant will close completely, or that parts of the facility that are a hazard to trains can be removed.

Just north of the Georgia Pacific plant, there is commercial and industrial development along both sides of the line. There is a road immediately adjacent to the west side of the line. The industrial development is between the shoreline and the road. The former Bellingham passenger station, now a BNSF office facility, is on the east side of the tracks and is on the historic register. There is another BNSF office immediately to the north. The slope increases to a bluff along the east side of the line just north of the two BNSF buildings. There is a small yard along the west side of the main track for shipments originating and terminating in Bellingham. The road extends along the west side of the yard. At the north end of the yard, the line climbs the face of the bluff, crosses a deep ravine on a 540-foot bridge, and follows the top of the bluff on the opposite side of the ravine, about eighty feet above the shoreline. The elevation increases to about 100 feet above the shoreline near rail milepost 100. An industrial spur opening north at rail milepost 99.6 leads to a cement plant that has been closed for several years. The spur is used for car storage when needed.

Near rail milepost 100, the bluff has eroded to a point close to the west side of the track. A vertical motion detection system was installed to monitor earth movement and provide warning of failure of the bank. At this point the line passes just south of the south end of the runway at Bellingham International Airport. The airport boundary is 500 to 1,500 feet from the track.

Amtrak Cascades Operating and Capital Plan February 2006 Appendix B: Description of Current Rail Line Page B-37

North of the earth movement detection site, the top of the bluff diverges to the west, away from the track. There is an industry track opening north on the east side of the line near rail milepost 102. The industry, a lumber transloading facility, is located immediately adjacent to the main track. There is also an industrial track opening north on the east side of the line near rail milepost 104. Between rail milepost 104 and Ferndale, the terrain is generally wetland, Tenant State Wildlife Area, or parkland.

Ferndale (Distance 292 Rail Milepost 106) The line crosses the Nooksack River on a 480-foot long bridge at the east edge of the Ferndale central business district. There is a CTC siding of about 8,600-foot length on the east side of the line, a double ended team track east of the siding, and a spur to the grain elevator opening north on the west side of the line.

A highway, Portal Way, extends adjacent to the east side of the line between the north end of the siding and Blaine.

Custer (Distance 297 Rail Milepost 111) The line passes through the rural village of Custer. There is a storage track about 6,000 feet long along the west side of the line, used for storage of cars for Cherry Point Subdivision cars.

Intalco (Distance 298 Rail Milepost 112) Intalco is a junction with the Cherry Point Subdivision, which diverges to the west through a wye. There is a yard track between the legs of the wye, a yard track north of the north leg of the wye, and two yard tracks on the Cherry Point Subdivision just west of the west wye switch. The yard tracks at Intalco are used for storing and switching cars to and from the Cherry Point industrial district, five to eight miles from Intalco.

Swift (Distance 302 Rail Milepost 116) There is a 8,700-foot long CTC siding along the east side of the main track at Swift, and two short spur tracks, opening south, on the east and west side of the line that are used for cars being held by U.S. Customs.

Swift was constructed as an alternative to extending the siding at Blaine (Distance 305 rail milepost 119). The Blaine siding is 6,000 feet long, but the practical capacity is only about 4,100 feet because of a road crossing near the north end of the siding. It is not practical to extend the siding to the south because of the bluff adjacent to the track on the east and the shoreline of Drayton Harbor on the west. It is possible to extend the siding north, but it would extend into Canada. Extending the Blaine siding into Canada is not physically difficult but would involve February 2006 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Capital Plan Page B-38 Appendix B: Description of Current Rail Line

Bow to Samish Siding Extension The capacity of the line between Everett and New Westminster, BC is generally limited by the extreme distance and running time between sidings. In some locations, such as English, Stanwood, and Bow, the existing sidings are in the correct location to allow sufficient capacity but are too short to accommodate typical freight trains. A siding extension is sufficient in these locations.

The Bow Siding was extended to about nine thousand feet to accommodate the first Seattle to Vancouver, BC Amtrak Cascades service in 1995. This siding allows freight trains to meet or be passed by the current Amtrak Cascades trains. In the existing configuration, the next location north of Bow which is available for a siding long enough to accommodate a freight train, is South Bellingham, after it has been significantly extended. The distance and running time between Bow and South Bellingham is not sufficient for the required capacity. In addition as Amtrak Cascades service is added it becomes necessary to meet Amtrak Cascades trains at or near Bow in order to fit them with the required traffic pattern between Portland, OR and Seattle. If two passenger trains must use the Bow siding to meet, it then recreates some of the initial capacity problem: a lack of places for freight trains to clear for passenger trains.

To overcome these limitations, the short siding at Samish, which has not been used for meeting trains for almost forty years because of its length, is extended south to connect with the siding at Bow. Two crossovers will be constructed at the north end of the Bow siding to allow Bow to Samish to be used as one continuous siding or as two individual sidings. When used as individual sidings, a freight train may use the section at Bow to be overtaken by the two passenger trains that meet at Samish. For instances in which passenger trains are not using the Bow or Samish section of the siding to meet, opposing freight trains may use the two sidings to meet and be overtaken by one of the Amtrak Cascades trains. Bellingham Siding Extension Extending the Samish siding to allow it to accommodate a typical freight train improves the excessive single track running time between Bow and South Bellingham; however, it is also necessary to extend South Bellingham to accommodate a typical freight train. Extending the siding is difficult, but a new siding north of Bellingham does not meet the capacity requirement. It would extend the running time between meeting points (Samish and a new siding north of Bellingham) so they are similar to the current single track running time between Bow and South Bellingham, providing no capacity improvement.

February 2006 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan Page 4-26 Chapter Four: Capital Plan

Two street crossings at South Bellingham, one on either side of the passenger station, prevent the use of the existing siding as part of the extended siding to accommodate a freight train. The South Bellingham siding must be extended north from the current north switch sufficiently to accommodate a typical freight train between the street crossing north of the passenger station and the north switch. The north switch of the extended siding would be located just south of the street crossing near rail milepost 97. There are three street crossings within the length of the extended siding. These crossings would require grade separation in order to allow a freight train to stop on the siding to meet the opposing traffic or be passed.

Two of the street crossings are relatively easy to grade separate. The third crossing, at Boulevard Park, is more difficult. The crossing provides access to a parking lot within the park. It may be necessary to provide alternative parking and improved pedestrian access in lieu of providing a grade separation that can be used by motor vehicles. The siding extension would require that a second track be constructed through the park area. Two sidings, one extending the existing South Bellingham siding southward and a new siding extending north from the north end of Bellingham yard would also provide the required capacity; however, it would require a new or expanded tunnel at the south end of the current South Bellingham siding, a causeway and bridge crossing Chuckanut Bay, and some extensive bridge and embankment construction north of Bellingham yard.

A switching lead for the north end of Bellingham yard extends between the north end of the yard and the bridge south of rail milepost 99, eliminating conflict between switching and through traffic. Ballard Bridge Speed Increase The current speed limit over the Ballard Bridge is twenty mph for all trains. This restriction is approximately half of the speed limit for trackage either side of the bridge. This poses a capacity limitation, and also excessive travel time for passenger trains. An engineering assessment of the bridge will be made and the bridge will be modified appropriately for a speed limit for Talgo trains of forty-five mph and thirty mph for freight trains. Scott Road Station or Capacity Projects North of Brownsville This is discussed in detail in the Greater Vancouver Terminal Appendix L.

Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan February 2006 Chapter Four: Capital Plan Page 4-27

Tacoma, WA to Seattle, WA

z Twenty through train movements between Tacoma and Seattle. The typical speed varies between thirty-five mph and fifty mph because of power to weight ratio;

z Two local freight movements between Tacoma and Auburn, one between Kent and Thomas, two between South Seattle and Kent. Local freight service occupies the northward track at Orillia for three or more hours per day; z Between Tukwila and Seattle, there are an additional one hundred or more movements per day including through trains operating between South Seattle or Seattle and Everett or Wenatchee, light engines moving between yards and the Interbay locomotive service facility, switching movements, and Union Pacific through trains on the shared trackage between Tukwila and Argo; and

z Two long distance Amtrak trains, six Sounder commuter trains, and six Amtrak Cascades trains per day.

Seattle, WA to Everett, WA

z Thirty through train movements between Seattle and Everett;

z Thirty local movements between Seattle and Interbay including trains between south of Seattle and Interbay, yard switching, and locomotives moving to and from the Interbay locomotive service facility; one or more local freight movements between Everett and Mukilteo for the Boeing plant. One or more times per week the Boeing movements handle wide loads that cannot pass other rail equipment on an adjacent track; and

z Two long distance Amtrak trains and four Amtrak Cascades trains per day.

Everett, WA to New Westminster, BC

z Two through trains per day between Everett and Burlington for movement to and from Sumas and six through freight trains between Everett and Brownsville or New Westminster, BC. There are occasional through train movements between Everett and Colebrook, which continue to Roberts Bank, a rotary coal dumper facility, or Delta port, an intermodal facility;

z One round trip local freight train per day between Everett and Burlington, one local freight train that works at Burlington about six hours per day then operates on the Anacortes branch, one local freight train between Everett and Bellingham, one local freight train between Bellingham and New Westminster, BC two local freight trains between Bellingham and the Cherry Point spur at Intalco, two local freight trains between New Westminster, BC and the Tilbury Island spur at Townsend; and February 2006 Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan Page 2-4 Chapter Two: Methodology

z Two Amtrak Cascades trains between Everett and New Westminster, BC and two between Everett and Bellingham.

New Westminster, BC to Vancouver, BC

z Forty Canadian National Railroad (CN) through freight trains per day between the Fraser River Bridge and Willingdon Junction or Vancouver, BC. Ten other freight movements use the Fraser River Bridge between Fraser River Junction and the junction at the north end of the bridge, to the Southern Railway and CN facilities in New Westminster, BC; z At Vancouver, BC there are a large number of CN freight movements between the main yard and the waterfront yards. At Vancouver Junction, these movements cross the route used by passenger trains entering and leaving the Vancouver, BC station; and z Two Amtrak Cascades trains per day and four non-daily passenger trains operated by VIA Canada and Rocky Mountain Rail Tours.

What assumptions were used as the basis for this operations analysis?

Prior to developing this (as well as the previous) operating and capital plans for the Amtrak Cascades program, a number of general and specific assumptions were made based on existing conditions along the corridor, as well as policies that were in place at the time. As mentioned previously, some of these conditions changed since the early operating plans were developed. Appendix C of this document presents:

z the general and specific assumptions that were used to develop the initial operating and capital plans;

z changes in policy and existing corridor conditions that affect these assumptions; and z revised assumptions based on new conditions.

What was the general methodology for this analysis? Once the existing conditions are identified and assumptions are developed, the planning method for analysis needs to be chosen. Following selection of the planning method, critical concepts need to be incorporated, allocation of responsibility needs to be clarified, and then the analysis is performed. Initial findings help lay the foundation for the iterative process between operations and infrastructure. The following discussion outlines this process.

Amtrak Cascades Operating and Infrastructure Plan February 2006 Chapter Two: Methodology Page 2-5

Table 7: Simulated Performance for 7-Day Period Measure Simulation 1 Simulation 2 Simulation 3 Simulation 4 Base Case Base Case + Base Case + Base Case + New Service New Service + New Service + Improvements Improvements Set 1 Sets 1 and 2 Passenger Train Count 82 116 116 116 Expedited Train Count 72 72 72 72 Freight Train Count 240 240 240 240 Total Train Count 394 428 428 428 Passenger Train Miles 14,096 16,696 16,726 16,774 Expedited Train Miles 117,775 117,801 117,711 117,748 Freight Train Miles 195,890 195,793 195,327 195,699 Total Train Miles 327,761 330,290 329,764 330,222 Average Passenger Speed 35.6 mph 36.5 mph 36.6 mph 36.6 mph Average Expedited Speed 22.8 mph 22.7 mph 22.7 mph 22.8 mph Average Freight Speed 14.9 mph 14.6 mph 14.7 mph 14.9 mph Overall Average Speed 19.2 mph 19.7 mph 19.8 mph 19.9 mph Passenger Delay Percent 3.8% 4.7% 4.4% 4.2% Expedited Delay Percent 18.6% 18.9% 18.9% 18.2% Freight Delay Percent 33.6% 36.8% 35.6% 33.4% Overall Delay Percent 24.7% 25.6% 24.9% 23.6% Passenger Delay per 100 5.4 minutes 6.4 minutes 6.0 minutes 5.7 minutes TM Expedited Delay per 100 35.9 minutes 36.7 minutes 36.6 minutes 35.4 minutes TM Freight Delay per 100 TM 74.0 minutes 81.1 minutes 78.6 minutes 73.8 minutes Overall Delay per 100 TM 48.6 minutes 49.1 minutes 47.8 minutes 45.2 minutes Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 2011 Operations Simulation.

Summary: In line with previous simulation efforts, this study shows that the addition of Bellingham-Everett regional rail service, plus the operation of one additional Cascade round trip Seattle-Vancouver, will not degrade current freight performance, but instead will improve it, assuming concurrent track capacity improvements. This round of simulations confirms the validity of the improvement package, whether or not the Bellingham-Everett regional rail service is established. The results do indicate minor increases in delay to passenger trains in Simulation 4 versus the base case Simulation 1. Mitigation of such delay may require operational changes or track capacity enhancements. However, as the 2008 study, this round of simulations did not test any potential increased levels of freight service in combination with the added passenger trains. These increase service levels could include in coal and grain traffic to the proposed Cherry Point export terminal.

28 Comment from BNSF

The simulation findings were shared with BNSF. On April 1 BNSF submitted its comments on this simulation. Specifically, BNSF suggested: longer simulation warm-up and cool-down periods than were assumed; different diesel exhaust flush times for the Cascade tunnels5; more elevation detail track segment6; and grain trains of 100 cars rather than 85 cars7.

Apart from these, BNSF indicated that it had no issues with the technical aspects of the RTC operations simulation effort.

BNSF advised that its review and comment on the RTC simulation does not constitute BNSF agreement to plans to implement a regional rail service between Bellingham and Everett. BNSF explained that its traffic patterns change over time, so base line conditions will change. If the regional rail service were to materialize, BNSF said it will perform an independent operations simulation of the line to confirm system performance.

Conceptual cost estimates

This section discusses conceptual cost estimates for implementation of regional rail service between Bellingham and Everett. Costs are stated in 2011 dollars.

Rolling Stock: As discussed elsewhere in this report, the estimated cost of a three-car DMU (diesel multiple unit) train set is $9.3 million. The service would need three sets: two for regular weekday service and the third as a spare. Accordingly, the cost for rolling stock estimated here is $27.9 million, before delivery and any applicable taxes.

Stations: This study assumes two new intermediate stations at English and Maryville. Lump sum conceptual cost estimates are $2 million for the former and $3 million for the latter8. Costs would include a platform, a small shelter, and parking. Ridership is likely to be higher at Marysville, and thus the need for parking there would be greater, triggering a higher cost.

Layover Facility and Car Shop: The simulation assumed a daytime layover facility in Everett and a maintenance shop in Bellingham. Lump sum conceptual cost estimates for these support facilities are $3 million for the former and $10 million for the latter9.

Track Improvements: While this analysis included double track improvements on the Scenic Subdivision south of Everett, these do not directly pertain to regional rail service. Those track

5 Flush times are the times required to rid a tunnel of dangerous levels of diesel smoke after one train leaves and before another train enters. Flush times at Cascade Tunnel are higher for eastbound trains than for westbound trains. WSA made the appropriate changes. 6 While the WSA simulation included some elevation detail, it was not to the degree that BNSF typically includes. Where elevation really matters is on the Wenatchee leg of the Scenic Subdivision running to the Cascade Mountains. The Wenatchee leg was included in the simulation, but it was not its focus, which was between Bellingham and Everett. This is a fairly flat segment where changes in elevations are comparatively slight and not important for the analysis. 7 The key input is train length, not car number, and the assumed train length was consistent with 100-car grain trains. Nevertheless, WSA corrected the car number from 85 to 100. 8 Based on an estimate for a similar station design quoted to Trinity Railway Express, Dallas. 9 Assumes a 7,000 square foot structure, storage tracks, a maintenance pit, a small crane and lifts. Estimate verified with Trinity Railway Express. Wheel truing would contracted for and performed elsewhere. 29 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study

FINDINGS OF INTERIM REPORT 2 Guiding, sector, and program policies express what the State hopes to achieve through action in the passenger and freight rail system. Any proposal for state action must be evaluated for consistency with these policies. Each level of decision-making is guided by a separate and specific set of policy statements. At the guiding level, the policy statements are overarching and broad. They embody the State’s approach to participation in the private sector rail system. The sector policies acknowledge the current primary user groups in Washington State, including ports and international trade, industry, agriculture, and passenger rail. The sector policy statements set the goals for what the State hopes to achieve for each of these groups through an efficient and cost-effective rail system. The sector policies are based on the Interim Report 1 findings, which suggested that the State’s economy and transportation system would benefit if current users maintain or expand their use of rail. Finally, program statements are specific, targeted statements that suggest the set of solutions that might be acceptable to the State in implementing projects or actions. A proposed project or action should be consistent with the guiding, sector, and program policies to qualify it to move forward in the benefit evaluation criteria. The benefit evaluation processes used by other states and organizations offers some guidance for a benefit evaluation process for Washington State. Several other states and organizations, including Florida, Tennessee, and FMSIB, have established methodologies by which to evaluate rail projects for public sector involvement. Development of the Washington State benefit/impact evaluation process included a review of the decision-making criteria, the variables used in the evaluations, and the framework for assessing each action that have been adopted by these other states. This review contributed to a consistent definition of what constitutes public benefits, provided examples of generally accepted and relatively simple approaches to measuring benefits, and gave examples of approaches that included qualitative as well as quantitative assessment methodologies. A clear finding of the review was that the process for evaluating Washington State rail actions should be relatively simple to execute and should focus on a modest number of critical benefit categories so that the results of the evaluation can be communicated easily to decision-makers and the general public. Every project, package, or policy under consideration must be reviewed through the lens of each of the four different key stakeholder groups. This is a key feature of the benefit/impact evaluation methodology proposed for Washington State that distinguishes it from those of other states that were reviewed for this study. Every action of the State in the rail sector will affect a wide variety of stakeholders. The degree to which an action benefits other stakeholders besides the State should be an important indicator of the degree of required participation by these other parties. The action will offer benefits and disbenefits to the State, to the rail carriers (Class I and short lines), to passengers/ shippers (depending whether it is a passenger or freight rail action), and to communities in which the action will be taken or through which the rail service

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-3 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study

will operate. Each of these four stakeholder groups will be affected in different ways by an action; therefore each must have its own set of variables by which to gauge the magnitude of the effect (either positive or negative). The variables recommended in this report were developed with the assistance of the Technical Review Panel experts assembled for this study. The benefit/impact evaluation methodology provides for a comprehensive evaluation of public benefits to the State that includes both quantitative and qualitative benefit measures. The result is summarized and then compared to benefits/impacts for other stakeholders that are measured using a simpler, more qualitative approach. Benefits to the State from a particular action are calculated using several tools, including a public benefit/cost calculator and a set of associated qualitative questions. It is a fairly robust process that considers many variables and quantitative measures. The process for assessing benefits to the passengers/shippers, railroads, and communities is much simpler, focusing on “a few good measures.” Evaluating a few measures focuses the methodology on those factors that are most important to other stakeholders when they consider their participation in a project/action. Taking a more qualitative approach to evaluating these measures recognizes the potential difficulties associated with obtaining proprietary data for more sophisticated quantitative measures. The methodology presented in this report needs to be refined and tested with some case studies in order to decide if it is the correct approach to take. The tools produced in this report are drafts and will be revised based on feedback and the completion of several case studies. The case studies, along with continuing discussions with the rail study team, will determine if this process is to be the final product for the WA State Rail Capacity and Needs Study. A general principle of the policies recommended in this report is that free market economics is preferred as the approach to achieving economically efficient outcomes. By economic efficiency, we mean an outcome in which the economy can achieve the highest level of net output and aggregate consumer welfare (i.e., the total benefits to all consumers is as high as it can be). There are many reasons why markets may not deliver this outcome. For example, there are cases where there is limited competition in the marketplace, consumers do not have adequate information about choices in the marketplace, government is already subsidizing one economic sector over another, or businesses do not have access to the capital they need to make profitable investments. In addition, the most economically efficient outcome is not always the most equitable, and there may be compelling political reason to give one economic sector more assistance relative to another in order to “level the playing field.” In all of these cases, a public role in the marketplace can be justified. In order to evaluate policies that involve government intervention in the private marketplace in a way that may appear to give preference to one sector over another, the general approach recommended by this report is to evaluate the net public benefits of government action – i.e., do public benefits as defined in the benefit/cost indicator exceed public costs. Further, we have proposed a set of

ES-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study

• Transfer of responsibility for branch line switching from the Class I railroads to local short lines wherever possible. These operating strategies will increase velocity and reduce car cycle times (generating more effective capacity) if certain infrastructure improvements are undertaken. However, they have major implications for Washington State: • The benefits of longer trains cannot be realized without significant investment in supporting infrastructure. This includes lengthening sidings, building more and longer storage tracks for assembling trains in terminals and yards, and adjusting operations to account for the time it takes longer trains to clear grade crossings and entry and egress locations at terminals. In addition, the use of longer and heavier trains will mean more, and more frequent, track maintenance. • Significant improvements must be made at yards and at access points from the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. While many of the terminal capacity and access issues that these ports are experiencing are independent of railroad operations (that is, the bottlenecks will exist without the shift to longer trains), they will be exacerbated by the shift to longer trains, at least as currently contemplated. For example, assembling an 8,000-foot train as opposed to a 6,000-foot train will require longer lead tracks; longer storage tracks; more switching time on the lead tracks to assemble the train; more time to inspect and air-test the readied train; more time to set-out a bad-order car if one is discovered prior to departure; and more time for the train to depart once a signal to enter the mainline is received. Long slow-moving trains may also block at-grade road crossings located near the yard for an inordinate amount of time. • The inability to use the Stampede Pass corridor for intermodal trains and the growth in container trade through the ports will put increasing pressure on the north-south I-5 rail corridor. This is and will continue to degrade the performance of passenger trains in the corridor as well as UP’s ability to serve its intermodal traffic over track shared with the BNSF. Ultimately, this will affect the availability of competitive rail service from the ports and their potential attractiveness to certain ocean carriers. • Carload shippers who generate small volumes of cargo and who ship small numbers of carloads to many different destinations will find it harder to get service, will find the service increasingly costly, and will see their service receiving the lowest priority of all the cargo that is being moved. This change in priorities has already been felt by Washington’s industrial carload shippers and Eastern Washington’s agricultural shippers. • Many shippers of carload traffic, even those generating high volumes, will need to reorganize their rail facilities and operations to bring them more in line with the operating models of the Class I railroad. Many customers are finding that they must change storage track configurations, change the way they build trains, and change how trains are set for pickup and drop off. In

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-3 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study

the future, shippers on industrial leads may need to identify opportunities for third-party switching in order to maintain their service. • Short-line traffic that does not fit the “hook and haul” operating strategy of the Class I railroads will find it increasingly difficult to get cars, get timely service, and get low rates, especially for small shipments. It will take more time and cost more for short lines to service their customers. This may affect the long-term financial viability of some of the short lines. In the past, short lines have often compensated by deferring expensive infrastructure maintenance, particularly on low-density lines. This usually compounds the problem by forcing slower train speed and less reliable services – services that cannot compete effectively against trucking, especially for short-haul shipments. Additional financial pressure on short-line railroads may affect the market share and profitability of agricultural product storage businesses. In the worst cases, the financial pressures might force businesses to relocate or close with a loss of jobs and revenue for the local communities. • Longer, more frequent trains will create growing conflicts in at-grade crossings throughout the state. Given current traffic patterns, this is expected to be a significant problem along the I-5 corridor. If BNSF crown cuts the Stampede Tunnel, enabling it to route more double-stack intermodal trains over this line, the high traffic flows will be felt in communities from Wenatchee to Yakima through to Kennewick, where there is increasing development. • Third party operators are interested in providing short-haul services that connect Washington exporters with the ports or other domestic markets. These services would benefit the State by decreasing truck traffic; however, given the current capacity constraints in the system, the availability of train time slots for short-haul services is expected to be extremely limited. • Railroads are using pricing to turn aside lower-profit carload freight in favor of intermodal and coal traffic, which can be handled more cost-effectively and profitably in bulk unit trains. In some markets and corridors, international intermodal traffic is squeezing out industrial-carload traffic, and even domestic-intermodal traffic. Shippers, who are used to being price setters, are now price takers. This is painful change for all shippers, especially cap- tive shippers, who are being forced to rethink their supply chains and markets. This shift is having a noticeable effect in Washington State and the PNW. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma are major gateways for intermodal traffic moving to and from the Pacific Rim. The strong growth in intermodal traffic is slowly eroding the railroads’ capacity to serve local Washington State and Oregon industrial and agricultural carload traffic. • The railroads are rerouting traffic. As oil prices have increased, the demand for coal from the Powder River Basin has surged. The Class I railroads have been under strong pressure from electric utilities and politicians to ensure reliable deliveries of coal. The high volume of coal trains moving east out of

1-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study

the Powder River Basin (PRB) has made it virtually impossible to route time- sensitive intermodal trains moving from PNW ports to central and southeast gateways such as Kansas City and Memphis through the near continuous flow of slow-moving coal trains. Adjusting to this, BNSF has shifted most intermodal traffic destined to locations south of Chicago to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. All intermodal traffic landing at PNW ports must now move through Chicago. Because of continuing delays in implementing much needed physical plant and infrastructure improvements in the Chicago area rail network, many trains routed through Chicago are penalized up to one to two days. • The UPRR faces a similar problem. The UPRR’s only east-west corridor connecting the PNW with Midwest and Eastern destinations passes directly through the 120 to 140 trains per day (TPD) central-Nebraska coal corridor. To avoid conflict with the coal trains, UPRR now routes their time-sensitive intermodal traffic over their Sunset Corridor, bypassing the large volume of coal trains of the Central Corridor. These routing changes make it more difficult for the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, and Vancouver to compete with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for intermodal traffic destined for central and south-central U.S. and East Coast markets. The remainder of this section summarizes the major problems in the rail system from the perspective of main user segments. Addressing these problems is the basis for the policies that are proposed in this report.

Port and International Trade We focus here on international container trade. Bulk cargo exports face their own issues moving through the Ports of Vancouver, Kalama, and Longview as well as through Seattle and Tacoma. Those issues are discussed in a later section focus on freight rail and the agricultural sector. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma have experienced tremendous growth in container cargo over the past decade, and the forecasts presented in this study suggest the potential for this growth to continue for the next 20 years. Much of this cargo is discretionary cargo bound for the interior U.S. and points east. This high-volume, long-haul traffic is served most cost-effectively by rail. The ports generate significant economic activity that benefits the State. These benefits were described in the first interim report. In the near-term, the throughput capacity of the ports is hampered by a number of issues including rail-terminal capacity constraints and bottlenecks accessing the mainlines from the port terminals. The key problems are: • Intermodal capacity constraints at the Port of Seattle caused by short stub- ended intermodal tracks; short arrival and departure tracks; short switching leads crossing busy streets at-grade; low-speed train movements; short staging tracks; limited ability to move cars between intermodal and staging yards; and dense urban development surrounding their facilities.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-5

July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study Addendum to Interim Report #1

Response 2. All of the maps with the HDR logo have been reproduced in a for- mat that is more easily readable. This is provided at the end of this addendum. Figure ES.2 was updated using a different color scheme. Comment 3. Pages ES-9 and ES-10, 2nd paragraph and following two para- graphs: Replace “cover” with “exceed”; replace “are trying to” with “now”; replace “attempting to change” with “changing,” replace “accommodate” with “adapt.” Response 3. Edits underlined: The railroad industry is not keeping pace with demand. Railroading is one of the most capital intensive industries in the U.S. Much of the capital investment is devoted to replacing “used up” capacity as rail traffic places enormous wear and tear on underlying infrastructure. Railroads also spend much of their capital budgets on power and other equipment. This does not leave much left over for adding new capacity. Capacity limitations and the recent surges in demand have allowed Class I railroads to increase their rates and profits and for the first time in many years, they are earning returns that exceed their cost of capital. But even in this situation, the Class I’s are being very cautious in their investment strategies. Both the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the Union Pacific (UPRR) have investment strategies that emphasize increasing velocity through the system by operations strategies first and infrastructure expansion last. They are also focusing much infrastructure investment on the highest density, most competitive, and most politically sensitive corridors (Pacific Southwest and the lines out of the coal fields of the Powder River Basin). Class I railroads are attempting to change their business model. The railroads now emphasize long haul, hub-to-hub or point-to-point, service in high density corridors. This is the least operationally complex type of service, and it takes advantage of the low average cost of line-haul movements. The railroads are also changing operational practices to get more throughput from existing infrastructure. This has meant practices such as building longer trains, standardizing equipment with fewer car options, trying to get customers on industrial leads and spurs to make site improvements, and supporting transload centers and consolidation facilities. In some instances, these operational changes are working to improve productivity but in other cases they are creating new operational challenges (for example, longer trains that cannot access terminals and end up blocking mainlines and crossings). Railroads are also using pricing as a demand management tool to encourage traffic that is easiest to serve and most profitable, and to discourage traffic that is difficult to serve and least profitable. Short line railroads will continue to play an important role serving carload traffic in Washington State, but some of the most financially tenuous lines will find it difficult to offer quality of service that is necessary to retain markets. For those short lines that can adapt to the new business models of the Class I’s (consolidating traffic and delivering it to the Class I’s as they wish to receive it), rates will be favorable and they will see an increasing share of carload traffic coming their way. But a number of short lines in the State are not able to offer service that can meet shipper transit time and cost needs. In some cases, the

July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study Addendum to Interim Report #1

The state plan also includes long-range improvements for Amtrak Cascades services: • Increase the number of trains in each direction between Seattle and Portland from 4 trains per day to 13 trains per day. Increase the number of trains in each direction between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia from one train per day to four trains per day. • Reduce the one-way travel time between Seattle and Portland from 3.5 hours to 2.5 hours, reduce the one-way travel time between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia from 3.9 hours to 2.6 hours. Comment 34. Page 2-70, 1st full paragraph. (…fairly expensive long-term investment program) What are you trying to say? Response 34. Edits underlined: Cost to Reach Critical Performance/Ridership Levels on the Intercity Service Is Substantial and the Nature of Benefits Is Complex. Ever since the Washington State rail program was initiated, it has been planned under the assumption that certain performance levels had to be achieved to attract and retain ridership. The operations of the freight railroads (more specifically the BNSF) are taken as a given in evaluating operational performance of the passenger services. This means that if bottlenecks exist in the passenger corridor as a result of increased traffic and a particular mode of operations, these bottlenecks must be eliminated in order to maintain service levels. Though several major bottlenecks in the freight system have been identified (such as Stevens pass and Stampede pass), it is not clear when (or how) these capital-intensive improvements may be achieved. This uncertainty regarding BNSF operations means that some assumptions will have to be made in planning the passenger service. The objective of passenger investment should be to achieve a high level of performance and to ensure no change in freight-rail utility. This generally results in a very expensive long-term investment program that includes such items as the improvements to the mountain passes. The WSDOT passenger rail program evaluates the costs and benefits of this program by considering the direct benefits of the passenger rail program to the State and passengers, including cross-modal impacts (e.g., reduction of highway congestion). However, it does not attempt to calculate freight-rail benefits. It also does not directly address how to compare the benefits and costs of passenger rail investments with non-rail alternatives – especially to the degree that these alternative modal projects may include embedded subsidies for initial capital investment. Each of these issues suggests some of the complexity of evaluating costs and benefits of passenger rail projects in joint operations corridors. The approach will likely need to be expanded and further refined as part of a policy framework that is meant to consider all public and private costs and benefits and their allocation.

July 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and Needs Study Addendum to Interim Report #1

Response 37. This is a potential policy option that will be analyzed later in the study. Comment 38. Page 4-4, after 1st bullet. Add “GMA statutes change to encourage aggregating ctrs.” Response 38. This is a potential policy option that will be analyzed later in the study. Comment 39. Page 4-5, 2nd full paragraph. Replace “programs/policies” with “strategies.” Response 39. Edits underlined: The types of strategies that would support this policy objective could include: • Continued and expanded state sponsorship of intercity passenger services. • Focused investment to eliminate high-priority bottlenecks in shared freight/ passenger rail corridors. These investments should be made in partnership with the Class I railroads and a system of allocating costs between the public and private sectors that prices capacity improvements in relation to the value to each user should be developed. • State purchase of new right-of-way or leasing of passenger-exclusive right-of- way within existing freight right-of-way to separate passenger and freight operations. • Develop a rigorous analytical approach to evaluating all benefits of passenger rail investments, including an approach to evaluating freight-rail benefit that has buy in from the freight railroads.

Comments to Appendix: A Closer Look at Washington State Rail Users Comment 40. Page A-6, 1st paragraph. (Pertaining to Washington State projected container port cargo volumes of 7.3 million TEU by 2025) The numbers in the first item have appeared elsewhere, but I thought the BNSF was projecting much larger numbers – 50 million on west coast, with perhaps 10 million at POT alone. Response 40. No data source is readily available to address this. Comment 41. Page A-47, last paragraph. “…cited as a success by the railroads.” I would add the underlined part because I think there are lots of lumber shippers who don’t agree. This raises the other question about service quality – shippers of all stripes are complaining about service and we acknowledge that in places. Should we address it directly – what can the state do about service quality? E.g., help improve velocity, capacity, ombudsman role for smaller shippers etc? Response 41. Edits underlined: The issues and opportunities for the Lumber and Wood Products sector are similar to those of the manufacturing and

16 Bellingham Siding Extension

UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL I. EARTHWORK 1. Embankment CY $20 0 $0 2. Excavation CY $10 0 $0 3. Rock Excavation CY $50 0 $0 4. General* CY $15 101270.4 $1,519,056 II. TRACK 1. Track Construction a. New Track TF $135 14467.2 $1,953,072 b. Rehab Track TF $60 10190.4 $611,424 2. Turnouts a. #9's Each $100,000 0$0 b. #11's Each $110,000 1 $110,000 c. #15's Each $135,000 0$0 d. #20's Each $160,000 2 $320,000 f. #33's Each $360,000 0$0 3. Crossovers b. #11's Each $220,000 1 $220,000 c. #15's Each $270,000 0$0 d. #20's Each $320,000 0$0 f. #33's Each $720,000 0$0 4. Bridges a. MP 93.57 190' Wood Pile Trestle Bridge TF $8,000 190 $1,520,000 5. Culvert Crossings a. Major Culverts (>36" Diameter) LF $600 0 $0 b. Minor Culverts (<36" Diameter) LF $100 180 $18,000 6. Other Drainage LS $0 0 $0 III. ROADWAY 1. Roadway Construction SY $60 0 $0 2. At-Grade Crossing a. MP 93.60 Private Road Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $500 30 $15,000 2. Crossing Approaches SY $75 175 $13,125 b. MP 94.24 Private Road Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $500 0 $0 2. Crossing Approaches SY $75 0 $0 c. MP 96.24 Pine Street Grade Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $500 0 $0 2. Crossing Approaches SY $75 0 $0 d. MP 96.33 Public Grade Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $500 0 $0 2. Crossing Approaches SY $75 0 $0 e. MP 96.65 Public Grade Crossing 1. Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $500 120 $60,000 2. Crossing Approaches SY $75 350 $26,250 3. Grade-Separation Crossing a. Bridge SF $100 18000 $1,800,000 b. Roadway (earthwork & paving) SY $50 666.667 $33,333 c. Misc. (non-typical per project) LS $1 0 $0 4. Crossing Signals a. Upgrade Signal - Barrier Gates Each $200,000 1 $200,000 b. New Signal Each $250,000 1 $250,000 IV. RR SIGNALS a. Per P.O. T.O. Each $250,000 2 $500,000 b. Per Mile Mile $750,000 7.8 $5,850,000 V. UTILITY RELOCATION/ADJUSTMENT 1. Transmission Lines LS $1 0 $0 2. Fiber Optic Lines LF $95 0 $0 3. Miscellaneous LS $1,000,000 0$0 VI. CONTINGENCIES (30%) LS 0 $4,505,778 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $19,525,038 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION (20%) LS 0 $3,905,008 CONSTRUCTION & MITIGATION SUBTOTAL $23,430,046 VIII. ENGINEERING/ADMINISTRATION (7%) LS 0 $1,366,753 IX. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (6%) LS 0 $1,171,502 X. RIGHT OF WAY ACRE $250,000 3 $750,000 XI. TAX (8.2%) 0 $1,601,053 TOTAL $28,319,354

Assumptions: Track Miles Rehab Exist Siding from MP 92.20 to 93.56 1.36 $ 6,064,102 / mile New Siding from MP 93.56 to MP 96.70 2.14 New Mainline from MP 96.10 to MP 96.70 0.6 Rehab Existing Siding from MP 94.81to 96.20 0.39 Rehab Siding from MP 96.70 to MP 96.88 0.18 4.67

*General Excavation Includes a fill section of 5' x 25' for 75% of the time and a cut section of 10' x 25' for 25% of the time Bellingham Siding Extension (MP 93.5 - MP 98.6)

UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COMMENTS EARTHWORK Clear & Grub AC $4,000 $ - Common Excavation CY $10 $ - Assume continuous 10' W x10' H Rock Excavation CY $50 528000 $ 26,400,000 section from MP 93.8 - MP 94.8 Embankment CY $20 $ - General Excavation * CY $15 101270 $ 1,519,056 Subballast CY $30 $ - Erosion Controls LS $0 $ - Seeding AC $2,500 $ - Place Topsoil CY $25 $ - Tunnel MI $0 $ - $ - $ - TRACK Track Construction New Track TF $140 14467 $ 2,025,408 Rehab Track TF $100 10190 $ 1,019,040 Yard Track TF $125 $ - Lineover Track TF $25 $ - $ - Track/Turnout Removal/Relocation Remove Existing Track TF $10 $ - Relocate Existing Track TF $100 $ - Remove Existing Turnout EA $5,000 2 $ 10,000 Relocate Existing Turnout EA $35,000 $ - Remove Existing Crossover EA $10,000 $ - Relocate Existing Crossover EA $70,000 $ - $ - Turnouts Split Point Derail EA $45,000 $ - #9 EA $110,000 $ - #11 EA $120,000 3 $ 360,000 #15 EA $142,000 $ - #20 EA $168,000 1 $ 168,000 #24 EA $178,000 $ - #33 EA $360,000 $ - #48 EA $500,000 $ - Crossovers #9 EA $230,000 $ - #11 EA $250,000 0 $ - #15 EA $285,000 $ - #20 EA $336,000 $ - #24 EA $355,000 $ - #33 EA $730,000 $ - #48 EA $1,010,000 $ - Bridges MP 93.57 1902 WPT; MP 98.30 203' < 32' PRCT TF $5,000 192 $ 960,000 PT 32- 45' PRCT TF $6,500 494 $ 3,211,000 MP 97.07 494' CTG 45-80' IB TF $9,000 $ - 80-160' DPG TF $20,000 96 $ 1,920,000 MP 98.43 96' DPG, PT 80-160' TPG TF $20,000$ - > 160' TRT TF $30,000$ - Remove Existing Bridge TF $500$ - $ - $ - Culvert Crossings Major Culverts (> 36" Diameter) LF $600$ - Minor Culverts (< 36" Diameter) LF $100 180$ 18,000 $ - Other Drainage LS $0$ - Retaining Walls C.I.P. SF $75$ - Soldier Pile < 20' SF $75$ - Soldier Pile w/ Tie Back > 20' SF $100$ - Soil Nail SF $55$ - $ - Station Platform LS $2,500,000$ - $ - $ - ROADWAY Roadway Construction SY $60$ - At-Grade Crossing Concrete Crossing Panels Installed TF $800 270 $ 216,000 MP 93.60 Private Rd.ºº; MP 96.35 Bear Urban Major Crossing Approaches SY $75$ - Memorial Rd.º; MP 96.65 Laurel- Urban Minor Crossing Approaches SY $75 1575 $ 118,125 Georgia PCº; MP 97.02º; MP 97.16ºº Rural Major Crossing Approaches SY $75$ - Rural Minor Crossing Approaches SY $75$ - Bellingham Siding Extension (MP 93.5 - MP 98.6)

UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COMMENTS Close Grade Crossing EA 3 $ - MP 94.24, MP 96.24, MP 96.33 Grade-Separation Crossing Bridge SF $150 50000 $ 7,500,000 Three new OHBR (MP 94.24 Roadway (earthwork & paving) SY $50 11400 $ 570,000 Boulevard Park access road, MP 96.24 MSE Wall SF $40 $ - Pine St., MP 96.33 Cornwall St.) Embankment (fill) CY $25 56900 $ 1,422,500 Misc. (non-typical per project) LS $1 $ - $ - Crossing Signals Upgrade Signal - Barrier Gates EA $200,000 3 $ 600,000 º - Upgraded signals New Signal EA $250,000 2 $ 500,000 ºº - New signals $ - RR SIGNALS Per P.O. T.O. EA $250,000 2 $ 500,000 3.7 Miles of New Siding & 4.1 Miles of Per Mile MI $750,000 7.8 $ 5,850,000 CTC on ML Electric Locks EA $25,000 $ - $ - UTILITY RELOCATION/ADJUSTMENT Transmission Lines LS $1 $ - Fiber Optic Lines LF $95 $ - Miscellaneous LS $1 $ - $ - CONTINGENCIES (30%) LS 30% $ 16,466,139 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ 71,353,268 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION (20%) LS 20% $ 14,270,654 Wetland Compensation AC $0 $ - SUBTOTAL $ 85,623,921 ENGINEERING/ADMINISTRATION (7%) LS 7% $ 4,994,729 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (6%) LS 6% $ 4,281,196 RIGHT OF WAY Undeveloped AC $20,000 15.5 $ 309,091 Buy 50' ROW from MP 93.5 - MP 98.6; split equally between Undeveloped and Residential AC $100,000 15.5 $ 1,545,455 Residential items Commercial AC $250,000 $ - Industrial AC $350,000 $ - $ - TAX (8.2%) 8.2% $ 5,850,968

TOTAL$ 102,605,359

Assumptions: Track Miles Rehab Existing Siding (MP 92.2 to MP 93.56) 1.36 New Siding (MP 93.56 to MP 96.7) 2.14 New Mainline (MP 96.1 to MP 96.7) 0.60 Rehab Existing Siding (MP 94.81 to MP 96.2) 0.39 Rehab Existing Siding (MP 96.7 to MP 96.88) 0.18 4.67 $21,971,169 / mile

* General Excavation includes a fill section of 5' x 25' for 75% of the time and a cut section of 10' x 25' for 25% of the time POTENTIAL LOCAL DIRECT EFFECTS OF INCREASED COAL TRAIN TRAFFIC ON BNSF RAILWAY THROUGH BELLINGHAM

Prepared for COMMUNITYWISE BELLINGHAM by

January 17 2012 Among land transporta on modes, railroads have unique characteris cs that aff ect how they relate to their environment. An understanding of the environmental eff ect of railroads requires an understanding of these fundamental characteris cs. A specifi c method for the discussion of railroad opera on, and specifi c technical language, has been developed because of the unique nature of the characteris cs.

Railroad Characteristics TRACK: Basic Elements

The most obvious characteris c is the RAILS: Made of steel and generally TIES: Generally wood or con- track. A train follows a narrowly defi ned weighing between 38 and 45 pounds crete about 9 feet long 9 path. The engineer (operator/driver of for a one-foot length, supports and inches wide and 7 inches a train) does not steer. The locomo ves guides the wheels of trains. deep, support the rails and that pull and/or push the train follow the keep them stationary and in the correct alignment. track as do all of the freight or passenger cars in the train. The track allows trains DRAINAGE: Generally in the form of to operate in a space that is not substan- ditches along the track, is required to ally larger than the train. Trains do not keep water from accumulating in the require guard rails along curves or jersey ballast or in the subgrade earth. barriers between adjacent tracks. There- Accumulated water will cause track BALLAST: Crushed rock, keeps the fore, a railroad can have a rela vely mod- movement under trains and failure of track stationary and in the correct est property requirement. the subgrade to support the weight alignment. A train stays on the track because of the of the trains. shape of the wheels. Wheels are tapered, smaller diameter toward the outside edge, and have a fl ange that extends below the top of the rail. The fl ange gen- SUBGRADE: Compacted earth, supports the track. erally does not touch the rail. Except on TAPERED AND FLANGED STEEL WHEELS O sharp curves and when moving through a ROUNDED-TOP RAIL TURNOUTS turnout, the conical shape of the wheels is suffi cient to keep the wheels appropri- This section of a turnout is known as the SWITCH or the POINTS. The points pivot at one end and ately aligned on the rail. taper to a point at the other. The tapered end fits tightly against the stock rail to guide the wheels. Because the train merely follows the track and the engineer does not steer, a train cannot swerve to avoid an obstruc- on. Even when there are two or more parallel tracks, a train cannot merely change lanes to avoid another train. Loca ons at which trains can change tracks, a special confi gura on called a turnout must be planned in advance and constructed for the purpose.

Tracks used by trains to move along the line at normal speed are main tracks. Trains can move in either direc on on a main track. If traﬃ c is If this is a manually-operated switch, a lever-type rela vely light, the railroad may use only a single main track (single device known as a SWITCH STAND is mounted track) along all or a por on of a route. A siding is a track constructed here. Moving the lever pulls or pushes on the parallel to the main track and connected to the main track by turnouts operating rod to move the switch points. at the ends. A siding is used for one train to leave the main track to If this is a power-operated switch such as those allow another train to move by, either mee ng (opposing direc on) used at a CTC control location, the electric motor, called a SWITCH MACHINE, that moves the or passing (overtaking in the same direc on). A siding must be long operating rod is mounted here. enough to accommodate the longest train that will need to leave the main track to yield to another train. Other tracks, generally called industry or yard tracks, are used to store or maintain railroad engines and cars or to provide freight service to business.

The part of the wheel that is in contact with the rail is about the size of a dime. Smooth steel wheels rolling on a steel rail present very li le resistance to mo on. The small contact area is responsible for only a small amount of fric on. The wheel does not deform under the weight or in response to a turn as a rubber re does. This also limits the resistance to 2 mo on. Therefore, the power required to move the lading or passengers is rela vely modest. A 40 horsepower Volkswagen Beetle of the 1960s could a ain a speed of about 70 mph on a fl at road. To a ain that speed in the Beetle with steel wheels on steel rails, a large lawnmower engine would suffi ce. With its original engine, the Beetle could pull 40 other Beetles at about 40 mph with steel wheels on steel rails. It could also pull 13 large SUVs at the same speed. It could pull a 25 ton trailer at close to 60 mph. Modest power requirements provide a great advantage in fuel consump on and the as- SIGNALS sociated emissions. To take advantage of the low fric on fi xed guideway characteris cs of rail vehicles, they are much larger than highway vehicles. The size and weight aff ects the speed at which they can nego- ate curves.

NO SIGNAL SYSTEM: Train speed is limited to the speed at which the train can be stopped within The ease of movement on sight distance. To allow increased speed, the engineer must be notified that the track ahead is clear of steel rails presents two diffi cul- trains for at least the distance required for stopping at the desired speed. es. The limited fric on makes climbing grades and stopping diffi cult. Railroad grades must be gentle compared to highway grades. A grade considered moderate for a highway is extreme for a railroad. If the amount of force that the brakes exert on the wheels AUTOMATIC BLOCK SIGNAL SYSTEM: Signals spaced at approximately stopping distance, using exceeds the small amount of electric current in the track to sense the presence of trains, tell the engineer the condition between that signal and the next, extending the engineer’s sight distance and allowing increased speed. fric on between the wheels and the track, the wheels will 3 merely slide on the rail. Opera ng a train is like driving on ice except that the train will not slide off of the desired course. The stopping distance of a train is, at commercial- ly viable speeds, much longer than the engineer’s range of vision. A system of detec ng the presence of trains (and perhaps other hazards), called a signal system, is needed to virtually extend the engineer’s sight distance. Signals along the track, looking similar to traffi c signals at inter- sec ons but func oning CTC diff erently, tell the train INTERMEDIATE SIGNALS WORK engineer if the track AUTOMATICALLY TO SHOW SIDING is occupied at a point CONDITION OF THE TRACK ahead that is eyond stop- AHEAD MAIN TRACK MAIN TRACK ping distance. The signal system electronically divides the track into SIDING segments called blocks. There is a signal at the entrance to each block. It CONTROLLED SIGNALS ARE USED TO AUTHORIZE TRAINS TO USE A SEGMENT OF TRACK. THEY indicates the condi on of ARE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONTROLLED SWITCHES TO MANAGE TRAFFIC AND THE USE OF TRACKS. THEY NORMALLY DISPLAY STOP. WHEN THEY ARE SET TO AUTHORIZE A TRAIN TO the immediate block (oc- USE THE TRACK SECTION THEY BECOME AUTOMATIC SIGNALS THAT SHOW THE CONIDITON OF cupied / not occupied) THE TRACK AHEAD. and the condi on of one or more blocks beyond the immediate block (proceed-no restric on, prepare to stop at the next signal or second signal, proceed at a speed specifi ed by the signal).

Because the track steers the train, changing tracks at a turnout requires opera on of the movable part of the turnout. The movable part may be manually operated, requiring the train to stop, and a crew member to get oﬀ and operate the movable part of the turnout. Alterna vely, the movable part of the turnout may be operated by a motor, remotely controlled from a distant loca on. When the turnouts are remotely controlled, typically called Centralized Traﬃ c Control (CTC), signals serve the dual purpose of showing whether the track ahead is clear of other trains and convey authority to occupy the track ahead and may tell the train engineer what route the train will take through the turnout(s) just beyond the signal. Safety

Railroads, because they are engaged in interstate commerce, are regulated by the US government, speciﬁ cally the Federal Railroad Administra on of the Department of Transporta on. The Staggers Act of 1980 deregulated the railaroad industry, but only the economic and business aspect regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Safety regula ons and enforcement moved from ICC to FRA.The federal regula ons that apply to railroads are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regula ons part 200-299. They apply to virtually every aspect of railroad opera on. 49 CFR 200-299 is divided into groups that apply to speciﬁ c subjects:

4 Part Subject Part Subject Part Subject 200 Passenger service rules of prac- 222 Use of locomo ve horns at pub- 237 Bridge safety standards ce lic highway - rail grade crossings 207 Railroad police offi cers 223 Safety glazing standards loco- 238 Passenger equipment safety mo ves, passenger cars, and standards cabooses 209 Safety enforcement procedures 224 Refl ectoria on of rail freight 239 Passenger train emergency pre- rolling stock paredness 210 Noise emission 225 Railroad accidents/incidents: 240 Qualifi ca on and cer fi ca on of reports, classifi ca on, and in- locomo ve engineers ves ga on 211 Rules of Prac ce 227 Occupa onal noise exposure 241 US loca on of dispatching of railroads in US 212 State safety par cipa on 228 Hours of service 242 Qualifi ca on and cer fi ca on of conductors 213 Track safety standards 229 Locomo ve safety standards 244 Safety integr on plans governing consilida ons, mergers, or acquisi ons of control 214 Workplace safety 230 Steam locomo ve inspec on 250 Trustees of railroads in reorga- and maintenance standards niza on 215 Freight car safety standards 231 Safety appliance standards 256 Financial assistance for passenger terminals 216 Special no ce and emergency 232 Freight brake safety standards 260 Loans and loan guarantees un- order procedures der the rialroad rehabilita on and improvement fi nancing program 217 Opera ng rules 233 Signal systems repor ng 261 Credit assistance for surface transportatoin projects 218 Opera ng prac ces 234 Grade crossing signals 262 Capital grnts for rail line reloca- ton and improvement 219 Control of alcohol and drug use 235 Discon nuance or material 266 Assistance to states for local rail modifi ca on of a signal system service 220 Communica ons 236 Installa on, inspec on, mainte- 268 Magne c levita on technology nance, and repair of signal and deployment train control systems 221 Rear end marking device

The safety standards are quite detailed. For example, Part 213, Track Safety Standards divides track condi on into several classes. a maximum freight train and passenger train speed is assigned to each class. Measurements and condi on are specifi ed for track componentswith tolerances specifi ed for each class of track. For some components and condi ons, specifi ed measurements are as small as 1/4 inch. The regula ons specify the frequency of track inspec on and the qualifi - ca ons of the person inspec ng the track. When a defect is found, including any of the specifi ed measurements being out of the tolernce for the track speed limit, train speeds must be reduced by temporary speed restric on to the maximum allowed speed for the class of track that current condi on meets. The speed limit may only be restored to the normal speed a er the track has been brought back into the standard for that class of track. The regula ons also provide a mathema - cal formula for determining the maximum allowed speed through curves, based upon the sharpness of the curve (radius) and the amount of supereleva on (banking). Similarly, the regula ons contain detailed specifi ca ons for the condi on of locomo ves, freight cars, and passenger cars. FRA safety inspectors regularly inspect track, signals, cars, and locomo ves for compliance with the regula ons.

The regula ons also specify an extensive set of opera ng procedures for the use of the locomo ve horn at highway grade 5 crossings, the tes ng and opera on of the air brake system of a train, and general opera ng prac ces. The opera ng prac ces and rules for each railroad are contained in rulebooks, metables, and other documents. The prac ces must be approved by FRA. The regula ons provide specifi c procedures and standards for the cer fi ca on (licensing) of locomo ve engineers and train conductors. Employees are required to pass a biennial examina on on the rules and procedures. The regula ons require periodic on the job tes ng by railroad management staff in addi on to the biennial wri en examina-

ons. Tes ng and examina on records must be maintained for periodic 11:00 - review by FRA safety inspectors. FRA inspectors also preiodically perform Trains 1 and 2 will meet here. If this is single track, train 1 on the job tes ng of employees in addi on to the tes ng conducted by must wait at B for Train 2 ot Train 2 must wait at C for railroad management staﬀ . Train 1. When used in capacity study, this demonstrates that a siding constructed at this point will eliminate the Railroad cars, freight or passenger, receive a thorough mechanical inspec- delay. on at each terminal where cars are assembled into trains or trains are Train Path broken apart into individual cars for furtherance or delivery. In addi on, Train Path all employees along the line are required to visually inspect trains as they pass. Electronic detectors spaced periodically along the line inspec ng 10:00 bearings and wheels for defects and detec ng objects dragging along the FUTURE track from the bo omsof cars. when defects are found by electronic de- tector or visual inspec on, the train is no ﬁ ed by radio to stop. AT 09:45 40 1 30 PAST

The Language of Railroad Operation. 20 Direction of 10 2 The loca on of and need for railroad infrastructure is demonstrated using rising slope is direction of 09:00 a traﬃ c (stringline) diagram. A stringline diagram is a me-distance chart movement Train 1 is here - passing B that demonstrates the loca on of trains at any point in me. It is neces- Time sary to understand and be comfortable with reading stringline diagrams in Train 2 is here - approaching C order to understand railroad infrastructure requirements. Distance STATION E STATION D STATION C STATION B STATION A

Capacity - 11:00 - 11:00 Steeper slope of Train 1 waiting at B Railroad infrastructure re- line is lower for train 2. Vertical quirements are determined speed. Less line shows no distance traveled movement during in terms of capacity. Capac- per hour. the passage of time ity is not an absolute quan- ty. It is dependent upon the speed of the trains, the rela ve speed of one Train Path train to another, the length Train Path 10:00 of the trains, and the spe- 10:00 FUTURE cifi c combina on of trains FUTURE that will be operated (e.g., AT 09:45 AT 09:45 40 40 speed, length, and me 1 PAST 1 sensi vity). At any me, a 30 PAST 30 train must have exclusive 20 20 occupancy of the track on The diagram may include 2 which is it located as well 10 2 10 a schematic diagram of as the track in front of the the track arrangement 09:00 train that is within stop- 09:00 Time Time ping distance. Thus, it may Two main tracks Single track and sidings be necessary for a train to Train 2 is here - approaching C have exclusive right to sev- Distance eral miles of track at any me. On main lines, the TATION E TATION D TATION C TATION B TATION A STATION E STATION D STATION C STATION B STATION A S S S S S 6 signal system determines the amount of track ahead of the EAST 00:00 train that the train must occupy. On a single track line, a train 23:00 22:00 The next eastward train cannot leave must occupy the segment of line between sidings exclusively 21:00 Galloway until 0700 when the westward 20:00 train arrives: minimum headway 2 19:00 hours. as well. 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 Capacity is generally not uniformly distributed along the line. 14:00 13:00 The distance between signals may vary or the signals may be 12:00 11:00 spaced uniformly but the speed limit varies. Sidings may be 10:00 09:00 located at diff erent intervals or the speed limit may vary be- 08:00 07:00 tween sidings along the line. These factors must be considered 06:00 05:00 in determining the adequacy of the route for proposed traffi c. 04:00 03:00 Eastward train A westward train cannot leave Fairfield The capacity of the line is generally dictated by the individual 02:00 leaves Galloway until 0600 when the eastward train 01:00 at 0500 arrives segment that trains must occupy for the longest period. On 00:00 a single track line, that segment is the segment between the

Lancaster

Kellogg

Jerome

Irondale

Hayden Galloway

Fairfield

Egan

Drew

Campbell

Barry two sidings that are the greatest travel me apart. On a line Adams In this example, the siding to siding travel time is uniform for the entire length of that has two or more main tracks, the capacity is generally de- the line termined by the two signals that are separated by the greatest travel me. These are the capacity-limi ng segments. The EAST The next eastward train cannot leave 00:00 Galloway until 0900 when the westward 23:00 examples will demonstrate single track line capacity because 22:00 train arrives: minimum headway 4 21:00 hours. the line between Evere and Bellingham is single track. 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 Traﬃ c on the line has reached the capacity of the line when 16:00 15:00 14:00 every opportunity to operate a train through the capacity lim- 13:00 12:00 i ng segment has been reached.The minimum me that can 11:00 10:00 be achieved between two trains in the same direc on is called 09:00 08:00 minimum headway. 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 A westward train cannot leave Flee ng, the opera on of several trains in one direc on on 03:00 Eastward train Fairfield until 0700 when the 02:00 leaves Galloway eastward train arrives 01:00 at 0500 close headway, is generally not an eﬀ ec ve means of capacity 00:00 increase. Flee ng can cause substan al delay to trains in the

Lancaster

Kellogg

Jerome

Irondale

Hayden Galloway

Fairfield

Egan

Drew

Campbell

Barry opposite direc on. Flee ng trains in both direc ons is not an Adams eff ec ve means of increasing capacity. In tis example, the travel time beteween Fairfi eld and Galloway is twice the travel time between other sidings. The segment between Fairfi eld and Galloway is the Capacity can be approximated by dividing the length of a day capacity limiting segment. by the travel me through the capacity-limi ng segment.Thus, EAST if the travel me through the capacity-limi ng segment is 30 00:00 23:00 minutes (one-half hour) the capacity is 48 trains per day (24 22:00 21:00 hours divided by 1/2 hour). 20:00 19:00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15:00 14:00 13:00 Practical and Theoretical Capacity 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 The examples demonstrate theore cal capacity. That is the ca- 08:00 07:00 06:00 pacity that can be achieved by using every possible movement 05:00 04:00 opportunity through the capacity-limi ng segment. That type 03:00 02:00 of traffi c density and the precision that is required to achieve 01:00 it are not prac cal in regular operatoin. There will be some 00:00 varia on in even the most precise railroad opera on (e.g.,

Lancaster

Kellogg

Jerome

Irondale

Hayden Galloway

Fairfield

Egan

Drew

Campbell

Barry

Adams Switzerland or Germany). On a con nuing basis, a railroad can be expected to perform reliably at about half of the prac cal Fleeting trains in one direction may provide a small increase in ca- cpacity. The unused half of the theore cal capacity is needed pacity, but it is done at the expense of substantial delays to for track maintenance and as a buff er when trains do not fi t trains in the opposite direction. exactly into the full-to-capacity traffi c pa ern.

7 Congestion EAST 00:00 23:00 22:00 Regardless of when it is desirable to operate trains, the infra- 21:00 20:00 structurre will determine when trains can be operated. Con- 19:00 18:00 17:00 ges on occurs when traffi c exceeds capacity. Conges on does 16:00 15:00 not end un l some me a er traffi c has been reduced to less 14:00 13:00 than capacity. 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 Commercial Capacity 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 The theory of spacing traffi c evanly throughout the day in 00:00 order to maximize u liza on of the infrastructure is o en

Lancaster

Kellogg

Jerome

Irondale

Hayden Galloway

Fairfield

Egan

Drew

Campbell

Barry not prac cal. Railroads are a business compe ng with other Adams transporta on modes for customers. They must provide ser- Fleeting trains in both directions may provide a small increase vice when customers need it or customers will shop for an in capacity, but it is done at the expense of greater delays to alterna ve. Rather than confi guring traffi c to the characteris- trains in the opposite direction than result from single direction cs of the infrastructure, it may be necessary to confi gure the fl eeting. characteris cs of the infrastructure to the desired traffi c. This approach is typically necessary when passenger trains are 12:00 part of the traffi c because of their need to operate at specic mes determined by the travel needs of the public. Freight 11:00 trains can also require special treatment. Bulk commodity trains operate in a conveyor belt-like manner, but trains car- 10:00 rying certain types of manufactured goods and packages for 09:00 delivery have service requirements similar to those of passenger trains. 08:00

07:00

The effect of the pending PTC installations 06:00

The purpose of the PTC systems that have been mandated 05:00 by the US Federal government is collision preven on. Such systems may have some eff ect on capacity, depending upon 04:00 their design. The design of the systems is a work in progress. However, the fundamental opera on of the system is similar 03:00 to that of exis ng systems. The signifi cant diff erence will be 02:00 that the system will enforce the speed and stoppng requirements instead of relying solely on the engineers of trains. 01:00

PTC systems will probably include a display of the signals in 00:00 the locomo ve cab (commonly called cab signals). Cab signals ABCDEFGHIJ provide a reliability improvement, but no substan al capacity When trains are operated at a following time of less than mini- improvement. Some current systems actually reduce capacity mum headway, congestion occurs. Delays continue until after because of their design. The reliability improvement is found trafﬁ c entering the line has been reduced to less than capacity in the con nuous informa on about condi ons ahead. Way- (less than minimum headway). side signals provide informa on to the engineer only as they are passed. If the condi on ahead changes a er the train has passed a signal, the engineer will not know about it un l the next signal comes into view. If a train is closing on a slower train ahead, the train will receive a yellow signal (prepare to stop at next signal) when it is one block behind the slower train. If one second a er the following train passes the yellow signal, the leading train clears the main track at a turnout, the engineer of the following train must s ll begin stopping and not discon nue the braking un l the next signal, now displaying green, comes into view. A con nuously updated cab signal, such as will probably be included in PTC design, will no fy the engineer of the following train of the change and the discon nued need to stop immediately. The following train may proceed at normal speed and not experience the delay associated with preparing to stop. 8 PTC systems may include some type of moving block system. These systems do not divide the line into discreet segments (blocks). Electronic systems and radio are used to allow a following train to be as close as stopping distance plus a safety buﬀ er from the train ahead. There is always a possibility that a train may stop suddenly, probably due to a derailment or defec ve equipment. For that reason, the systems will be designed to not allow the following train to be closer than stopping distance. The systems will not allow many trains to follow within a short distance, making one very long virtual train.

As well, PTC systems do not aﬀ ect the basic infrastructure limita ons on capacity. The distance between sidings on a single track line remain the same. PTC does not materially aﬀ ect the travel me between sidings. The BNSF line between the Powder River Basin coal mines and the west coast is almost en rely a single track railroad. The supply of trains entering the line that extends between Evere and Custer is limited by the approximately 1,000 miles of single track railroad east of Evere .

Adjusting the infrastruc- Base Trains - ture to the trafϐic 00:00 23:00 In general, a single track line 22:00 should be confi gured with the travel me between sidings as 21:00 uniform as possible. This ar- 20:00 rangement minimizes delay 19:00 when traffi c is at or near capacity. If traffi c is heaviest during a 18:00 specifi c period because of com- 17:00 mercial requirements, infra- 16:00 structure is confi gured for that traffi c level. Regardless, uni- 15:00 form travel me between sid- 14:00 ings provides the most effi cient 13:00 opera on. 12:00

11:00

10:00 The BNSF line between Everett and Custer 09:00 08:00

The adequacy of the line to ac- 07:00 commodate traffi c cannot be determined by examining an 06:00 isolated segment. The line must 05:00 be examined over a distance 04:00 that allows considera on of the secondary consequences (e.g., 03:00 a train that must be held be- 02:00 cause there is no track available 01:00 for it at some distant point). 00:00 That distance typically involves endpoints of junc ons or terminals that feed traffi c into and ac- cept traffi c from the line being examined. For the purpose of Howarth Park Broadway Delta Marysville Kruse Jct SSS English SSS Stanwood SSS Mt Vernon Burlington SSS Bow Samish SSS South Bellingham Bellingham SSS Ferndale Custer SSS Swift SSS Blaine Bridge 69 Colebrook the discussion of the BNSF line The capacity of the BNSF line between Everett and Custer is limited by the travel time between that extends through Belling- Bow and Ferndale (shaded). The siding at South Bellingham is not long enough to accommodate ham, we will consider the line a typical freight train. In a day, 31 freight trains can operate through this segment when every between Evere and Custer, movement opoortunity is used (practical capacity 15 trains). 9 Base Trains - where the proposed coal trains 00:00 would leave the main line and travel on the branch line to 23:00 Cherry Point. 22:00

21:00 Between Evere and Bow, the average speed limit is rela vely 20:00 high, the terrain is rela vely 19:00

ﬂ at, and sidings are spaced at 18:00 intervals of about 15 minutes. Between Bow and Ferndale, the 17:00 speed limit is rela vely low, the 16:00 steepest (ruling) grade on the 15:00 line is located between Belling- ham and Ferndale, and the sid- 14:00 ing at South Bellingham is not 13:00 long enough to accommodate 12:00 a typical freight train, render- 11:00 ing it useless for providing capacity to the line. The distance 10:00 between Ferndale and Custer is 09:00 short, but the capacity aﬀ ected 08:00 by coal trains would be limited by the low speed at which trains 07:00 would leave the main track at 06:00

Intalco (Custer). 05:00

Traﬃ c on the line varies with 04:00 economic condi ons. Typically, 03:00 there are several daily mer- 02:00 chandise (mixture of manufactured goods and raw materials) 01:00 daily, two daily Amtrak Cas- 00:00 cades trains in either direc on, and several coal and returning empty trains each week. The coal trains are moving from Custer Colebrook Marysville Kruse Jct Burlington SSS Bow Samish SSS South Bellingham Bridge 69 Howarth Park Delta SSS English SSS Stanwood SSS Ferndale SSS Swift SSS Blaine Wyoming to Roberts Bank BC Broadway SSS Mt Vernon Bellingham for export from the West Shore When the current Amtrak Cascades trains are added to the diagram, the number of freight train terminal. movement opportunities are reduced to 26 (practical capacity 12 freight trains).

Travel me for a freight train through the capacity-limi ng segment between Bow and Ferndale is 48 minutes. That generates a theore cal cpacity of 31 trains per day (24 hours / 0.8 hours), which is a prac cal capacity of 15 trains. Previous to the current economic downturn, normal traﬃ c on the line would regularly reach 12 trains per day, including the four Amtrak trains. Thus, any expected increase in normal traﬃ c, freight or passenger, would require addi onal infrastructure.

Plans for additional Amtrak Cascades trains

The Washington State Department of Transporta on Log Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades (2007) includes two addi onal Amtrak Cascades trains in either direc on between Sea le and Vancouver BC (a er substan al infrastructure construc- on), but there is no currently projected funding for this expansion of the service.

The Long Range Plan describes the addi onal infrastructure requirements for the ﬁ rst of the two trains (the third daily

10 train). Between Evere and Base Trains - Custer, the service will require 00:00 extending the Samish siding to 23:00 the south and connec ng to 22:00 the siding at Bow, and extending the South Bellingham siding 21:00 north from its present north 20:00 end to Central Avenue. The in- 19:00 frastructure requirements for 18:00 this train in Bri sh Columbia are substan al. There is no current 17:00 plan in Washington or Bri sh 16:00 Columbia to fund the required 15:00 infrastructure. 14:00

The Samish and South Belling- 13:00 ham siding extensions were calculated for those loca ons for 12:00 specifi c reasons. The greatest 11:00 capacity increase for a project 10:00 is found in reducing the longest 09:00 travel me between sidings and simultaneously making inter- 08:00 siding trvel mes as uniform 07:00 as possible. Construciton that 06:00 makes the travel me through the capacity limi ng segment 05:00 substan ally shorter than those 04:00 along the rest of the line will 03:00 move the capacity limita on to another segment. Constructoin 02:00 that reduces the travel me 01:00 through the capacity limi ng 00:00 segment to an amount that is s ll substan ally more than the travel me through other segments along the line provides insuffi cient gain for the expen- Howarth Park Broadway Delta Marysville Kruse Jct SSS English SSS Stanwood SSS Mt Vernon Burlington SSS Bow Samish SSS South Bellingham Bellingham SSS Ferndale Custer SSS Swift SSS Blaine Bridge 69 Colebrook diture. The WSDOT long range plan for Amtrak Cascades includes extending the sidings at Samish and South Bellingham to increase capacity. These locations are necessary in order to increase An early plan to address the capacity and maintain approximately uniform travel times between sidings. The capacity limiting Bow - Ferndale segment was segment is now between Samish and South Bellingham. The extension of the Samish and South to construct a new siding north Bellingham sidings provides a capacity of 53 freight trains per day (Theoretical 25 freight trains of Bellingham, between the per day). Cliff side Drive and Slater Road crossings. This loca on provided a very small capacity increase, reducing the Bow - Ferndale travel me by less than ten minutes. That small gain in capacity would have been insuffi cient, and costly for the benefi t. The op mum locatoin for a siding to provide the required capacity would be as close as possible to half way (in travel me) between Bow and Fern- dale. That loca on would have been somewhere south of Chuckanut Bay. It would have been very costly costruc on with poten ally signifi cant environmental consequences. The resul ng inter-siding travel mes would have been more than 20 minutes, s ll the longest inter-siding travel mes on the line. The Bow-Ferndale segment would have twice the capacity, but would s ll limit capacity of the line to less than the other segments.

The solu on that was developed for the ﬁ nal plan, extending the Samish and South Bellingham sidings, provided the greatest beneﬁ t for the expenditure, would be less costly then a siding south of Chuckanut Bay, and have smaller environmental consequences than a siding south of Chuckanut Bay. 11 The infrastructure require- Base Trains - ments described in the Long 00:00 Range Plan for the fourth daily 23:00 round trip are substan al. The 22:00 plan includes the change from 79 mph maximum speed to 21:00 110 mph maximum speed. This 20:00 change will require a substan- 19:00 al amount of second and third 18:00 main track between Marysville and Larrabee State Park and 17:00 between a point near Marine 16:00 Drive and Alderwood Ave. in 15:00 Bellingham and the south bank of the Fraser River in Surrey BC. 14:00 There is likewise no funding 13:00 plan for this infrastructure. 12:00

There is a plan to redevelop the 11:00 former Georgia Paciﬁ c paper 10:00 mill in Bellingham. Part of the 09:00 redevelopment plan includes reloca ng the BNSF main track 08:00 from its current alignment 07:00 through the Georgia Paciﬁ c 06:00 property to south of the GP property and south of Cornwall 05:00 Ave. This realignment would al- 04:00 low a speed increase from the 03:00 current 20 mph for all trains around the curve through the 02:00 GP property between Laurel 01:00

Street and Central Avenue to 60 00:00 mph for Amtrak Cascades trains and 40 mph for freight trains. The increased speed reduces the amount of me that trains occupy road crossings and in- Howarth Park Broadway Delta Marysville Kruse Jct SSS English SSS Stanwood SSS Mt Vernon Burlington SSS Bow Samish SSS South Bellingham Bellingham SSS Ferndale Custer SSS Swift SSS Blaine Bridge 69 Colebrook creases capacity by reducing When the current Amtrak Cascades trains and the one additional Amtrak Cascades train for the travel me between the which the Samish and South Bellingham siding extensions are required are added to the capac- South Bellingham siding and ity-level freight trafﬁ c, 49 freight trains may be operated (24 trains at practical level). the Ferndale siding.

The segment between Bow and Ferndale is the current capacity limi ng segment between Evere and Blaine. Extending the Samish and South Bellingham sidings as required for the third daily Amtrak Cascades train and increasing the train speeds as will be provided for in the reloca on to the perimeter of the GP property will make travel mes between sidings close to uniform between Evere and Blaine, providing a smooth ﬂ ow of traﬃ c as well as increased capacity.

Coal trains

Railroads are common carriers. That means that they provide service to any party that has something to ship. In the days of regula on, that meant handling any shipment whether it was profi table or not. Regula on ended when such requirements caused the economic collapse of a large part of the railroad industry. Railroads s ll handle any shipments off ered, but with no requirement to handle them at a loss. There remains a small degree of regula on of railroads by Surface Transpor- 12 ta on Board. Shippers who feel that they have been treated unfairly by a railroad may fi le a complaint with STB for CURRENT BNSF ALIGNMENT possible correc ve ac- TO BE RELOCATED AS on. Railroads have no SHOWN IN RED FOR GP SITE fi nancial interest in the REDEVELOPMENT products they transport. SOUTH BELLINGHAM Freight transport by SIDING EXTENSION FROM rail is safer than freight WSDOT LONG RANGE PLAN transplort by highway. FOR AMTRAK CASCADES Freight transport by rail SEPTEMBER 2007 also represents the re- duc on of damage to roadways by heavily- loaded trucks. Coal trains have characteris cs that make them somewhat safer than a conven onal freight train. All of the CURRENT SOUTH cars in the train are the BELLINGHAM SIDING same size and weight. The eff ect of braking ac- on is uniform throughout the train. Conven- onal freight trains are made up of cars of many sizes and weights. The poten al for derailment because of the diff er- ences in the cars (e.g., heavy cars following BOW-SAMISH SIDING EXTENSION light cars or a mixture CURRENT SAMISH SIDING FROM WSDOT LONG RANGE of long and short cars) PLAN FOR AMTRAK CASCADES requires greater cau- SEPTEMBER 2007 on in accelera ng and braking the train. Coal trains also typically have locomo ves at the rear of the train, controlled by radio-based remote control from the engineer of the locomo ve at the front of the train. This arrangement fa- cilitates the handling of the train, reducing the CURRENT BOW SIDING stress on the couplings and reducing the chance of mechanical failures. It also improves braking performance.

Railroads do not construct facili es that are not required. They have an extensive process to determine exactly what must 13 be built, where, and why. The BNSF system consists of about 32,000 miles of track in 27 states and Bri sh Columbia. The en re system must compete for the capital improvement funds that are available through normal business revenue. Every prospec ve project is analyzed and weighed careully against others. Each year, the capital program is the list of the highest return projects among all candidate projects. Projects that do not generate a return of the capital investment in a rela vely short me are generally not considered. Unnecessary or poorly conceived projects will not be considered for funding.

The study process expands upon the fundamentals that have been explained in this paper. In addi on to development using these principles, simula on is extensively used in a process that establishes a proposed solu on as eﬀ ec ve and not excessive. BNSF can be expected to support any new business, including the proposed coal trains, with the minimum amount of eﬀ ec ve investment.

BNSF has made no public announcement of how it intends to handle the addi onal traffi c, nor what infrastructure must be constructed to support it. It appears likely from examina on of the infrastructure proposed in the WSDOT Long Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades, that the infrastrucure solu on developed for increased coal train traffi c will probably be similar. However, before construc on can begin, the project will be subject to the procedures prescribed by the Na onal Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA). Projects of the magnitude of the addi onal infrastructure needed to support the expected coal train traffi c will require a detailed statement of purpose and need, extensive research into the poten al environmental eff ects, public discussion, and mi ga on plans for environmental impacts that cannot be prac cally avoided.