Saturday's Internet Edition, 08:20 PM, May 17, 2008.
|
State transportation consultants announced that the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad is looking to vacate its current route for Powder River Coal trains along I-25 between Fort Collins and Pueblo and is looking at two alternative routes east of the interstate.
Under both alternatives, BNSF would shift its train routes along I-76. Alternative A would send the trains south at Omar and then back east at the I-70 Peoria exit east of Byers. Alternative B would send the trains east of Brush before sending them south along Highway 71 to head back east at Limon. Under both alternatives trains would head further east to Aroya before going south to Las Animas where the trains would continue on their current routes west or south.
“Alternative A would reportedly save six hours of commuting time while Alternative B would save about 10 hours,” said Randy Grauberger, Transportation Planning Manager with Parsons Brinckerhoff and consultant with the Colorado Department of Transportation. “It would also allow for the reinstitution of passenger service from Cheyenne, [Wyo.], to Albuquerque, [N.M.]. Currently, there is no sharing of tracks between freight and passenger trains and commuter trains have been off the tracks because of the slow freight traffic.”
Both BNSF and Union Pacific have been in contact with CDOT concerning expanded rail service, because BNSF would have to lease some track from UP under Alternative A and UP appears interested in leasing some track from BNSF further down the line.
“But that’s another process in itself that has been contentious,” Grauberger said. “UP isn’t real gung ho to lease their tracks and vice versa, but BNSF is more willing especially if they can get access to UP’s.”
Alternative A is a longer route, almost 220 miles, but would cost less because it would require less new construction.
“Alternative A would require about 100 miles of new track, while Alternative B would require all of its 178 miles to be new rail,” Grauberger said. “From a cost standpoint, A would be cheaper, but B is still a possibility, especially if lease agreements can’t be reached.”
Arapahoe, Lincoln and Kiowa county landowners expressed concern with both proposals because it would force some splitting of large tracts of range and cropland.
“How will we be reimbursed and what is the right-of-way process?” was asked by numerous meeting attendees.
A right-of-way specialist said impacted land would be appraised both before and after the rail lines are constructed and that landowners would be paid the difference between those two values, a process highly criticized by farmers and ranchers.
“If we have one or two ponds, lakes or other water sources on our land and they are on one side of the tracks, we lose any value for the other side. How fair is that?” one rancher asked fervently. “We have absolutely no use for that land because there is no water for our livestock and its value basically goes to zero, and that’s the base you will be paying us from. That’s not right.”
In addition, citizens were curious about the safety measures to prevent injury to both people and livestock.
A railroad engineer said trains would not exceed 45 miles per hour and that right-of-ways would range between 100-400 feet and would have two miles of siding every 10 miles.
Towns along both alternatives would see an increase in train traffic from 10-12 now to at least 35.
“A previous study in 2005 indicated we would see up to 52 trains through town,” said Limon Town Administrator Joe Kiely.
Limon Director of Public Works Dave Stone said that, without a grade separation, traffic trying to get to Highway 71 south of the tracks would be stopped 15-17 hours a day, based on trains taking approximately 20 minutes apiece to get across the crossing.
Residents from Hugo would also be inconvenienced by increased train traffic because of a lack of a grade separation where the tracks parallel Highway 287 at the grain elevator.
“You guys would cripple this community,” a Hugo resident said.
Grauberger indicated that the alternative routes are preliminary and that no decision to move forward with either one has yet been made.
When asked who would make the decision and when, Grauberger said, “The railroads will have the bulk of the decision-making, but I’m sure [CDOT] will have its say. Right now we are at no more than the first lines on a map. In the 2005 study, we were looking at a ribbon-cutting by 2010, and I would think if this moves forward that might still be the case. We are probably looking at a route, if any, being specified by late summer.”
Other public meetings have been held in Brush, Denver and Castle Rock and other meetings are slated for communities further east.
Grauberger indicated the Limon meeting was the most contentious and that the Brush meeting was more upbeat because farmers were interested in the possibility of a rail line in their area to eliminate the need to transport wheat to Byers by truck for loading onto trains.
“They are excited about the possibility of getting railroad shuttle loading capacity nearby so they don’t have extra trucking expense,” Grauberger said.