The news was announced by Metro Senior Director of Countywide Planning and Development Isidro Pánuco at a meeting of the Metro Board Planning and Programming Committee on Wednesday and reported by Joe Linton in Streetsblog LA. Last edit at 04/03/21 14:59 by AaronJ.In a victory for freeway fighters and anti- displacement activists, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) announced the Metro and Caltrans 605 Freeway Corridor Improvement Project (605CIP), which, per its initial plans, would have displaced hundreds of residents and impacted more than a thousand parcels in the area. Louis once they gained capacity as they don't need the mileage advantage of running on the ex-ATSF from Global 4 to KC for lower priority intermodal/auto traffic.Įdited 5 time(s). This also explains why UP moved lower priority traffic off the BNSF to going through St. Louis on the UP is only slightly longer than the BNSF running from LA to Logistics Park. Interesting side note that most do not realize but due to the KC-LA segment on the UP Golden State/Sunset routes being slightly shorter than the more curved BNSF ex-ATSF transcon, the total mileage from LA to Global 4 via St. Louis several years ago as coal traffic declined enough to create unused capacity across Missouri and the MacArthur bridge. This is largely why UP began moving lower priority intermodal/auto traffic off the BNSF and shifting to running through St. What used to be an issue crossing the MacArthur bridge in a timely manner back when that TRAINS article was written (~2001), is no longer a problem since there are few remaining coal trains and not enough non-intermodal traffic to clog up things. Louis now with little issue given surplus of route capacity/ease of crossing the MacArthur bridge with the death of coal traffic. In contrast, all of the lower priority intermodal traffic can easily and effectively run through St. This is largely why they gave up on the trackage rights deal with NS on the ex-Wabash between KC and Springfield IL as it just wasn't competitive for premium intermodal. Despite expensive trackage rights fees, the UP came to realize that they will be forced to run their Z trains on the BNSF regardless of other routes in order to stay competitive in the premium intermodal market as no other routes allow them to compete (trackage rights or their own rails). I'm fairly certain UP in the past has run up to six trains/day on the BNSF but no longer requires more than two Z trains (ZG4CI and ZCIG2) now. And it would have worked a lot better for UP, tying together around Marshall. A lot of work needed, but then single ownership/control. What has become of the UP agreement with NS between KC and Springfield? Did that fizzle out? I still think SP should have picked up the KC-Roodhouse section of CM&W when they gained the ESL-Joliet trackage. > not going to give up capacity to a competitor they > laughed at this at the time because the BNSF was > over additional trains on the former Santa Fe. > spolesperson said they were negotiating with BNSF > an article in TRAINS many years ago where a UP > have routes between those two cities and you're With using the Sunset/ Golden State Routes do
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |