Giving Railroads Access to Highway Medians?

I know there's a handful of railroads that run down the medians of highways. The few I can think of tend to be state-owned commuter rail, but there are examples where companies like Union Pacific runs down the median of some highways in California, and Brightline in Florida got access to run in the middle of I-4.

I'm wondering, why don't more railroads try and run down some highway medians? I know safety wise it could be a concern, especially with overpasses and how the trains would get into said median.

I also think the state should offer railroads to run down the medians of highways for significantly reduced costs (if not free), as long as they maintain their own tracks, as "reparations" for how the interstate highway system gave essentially a free ROW with maintenance to cars/trucks when railroads still had to pay taxes on their ROW and maintain it with their own money.

It's not a new concept. The Trans Texas Corridor was specifically multimode plus utilities. It was going to suppplement I-35 and run between the Oklahoma border and both Laredo and Brownsville.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 5:38 pm It's not a new concept. The Trans Texas Corridor was specifically multimode plus utilities. It was going to suppplement I-35 and run between the Oklahoma border and both Laredo and Brownsville.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Glad I hear its not a new concept. It's only right for the government to give railroads ROW access (for free) on highways that were used to crush their business, most notably passenger service.

Depending on the terrain, gradients acceptable on interstate highways would be too much for freight and passenger trains -- US 99 in California would be an ideal short cut between San Fernando and Bakersfield to avoid the traditional rail route via Lancaster and Mojave if it were through flat country, but it would be a helper district if you tried to run freight (and maybe passenger) trains that way -- which of course is why it goes via Lancaster and Mojave. Another problem, as you mention, would be getting the tracks onto and off the median; all flying over and ducking under would have to be done by the highway lanes. Easy to do if part of the original design and construction but difficult and expensive to retrofit on an existing highway. (And when most of the interstate system was being planned and built there was little or no public concern for dealing with the railroads' needs since the railroads were known to be on their way out.)

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 10:48 pm Depending on the terrain, gradients acceptable on interstate highways would be too much for freight and passenger trains -- US 99 in California would be an ideal short cut between San Fernando and Bakersfield to avoid the traditional rail route via Lancaster and Mojave if it were through flat country, but it would be a helper district if you tried to run freight (and maybe passenger) trains that way -- which of course is why it goes via Lancaster and Mojave. Another problem, as you mention, would be getting the tracks onto and off the median; all flying over and ducking under would have to be done by the highway lanes. Easy to do if part of the original design and construction but difficult and expensive to retrofit on an existing highway. (And when most of the interstate system was being planned and built there was little or no public concern for dealing with the railroads' needs since the railroads were known to be on their way out.)

Brightline in Florida was using some new tunneling system that would go under roadways while they were being dug/fitted, without having to close said roadway more than a night or two - if at all. I'm sure that would be used in many cases.

Worst comes to worse you could always construct some sort of overpass - those aren't terrible expensive to build and it is far easier for a car/truck to adjust to a steep grade than a train

Watching a lot of Brightline construction videos, I wondered if it was easier to run alongside the highway, as it did on 528, than in the median. (I doubt it had a choice, the median is for future widening.) There did seem to be some advantages to running alongside. It took more bridges, but only highway ramps to close and reconfigure. At the airport there were existing underpasses to widen. Of course this was all in Florida, with no terrain and easy soil, on a mostly rural or lightly suburban corridor, including a wilderness.

There are only two tunnels, one a traditionally built panel tunnel, with the roadway later built over it, and the second a big rectangular culvert pushed under the highway. The latter required a lot of expensive work, and highway lanes were still reduced by half for a month or so. There was one piece of patented equipment that couldn't be shown.

Where I'm from, when they expand highways, they seem to rarely build inwards towards the median, but more outward, expanding the highway's ROW. In general, whether it's in the median or alongside the highway, but still within its ROW, such should be allowed for railroads to utilize if possible, and tax-free preferably. It could even be under or over the highway too! Only fair considering the highways are a tax-free, subsidized competitor to the railroads.

Brightline did have some challenges between West Palm Beach and Miami. The area is incredibly dense, and they had to widen the ROW to two fit consistent tracks (plus more/new sidings) instead of just one with occasional sidings. That being said, that was on their existing ROW, not a new one running alongside a highway.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 10:48 pm Depending on the terrain, gradients acceptable on interstate highways would be too much for freight and passenger train

I wonder if this could be addressed by using a central cog rail in portions where the gradient is too steep for traction. Of course, this would require some locomotive modifications to allow for higher torque in exchange for lower speed.

if i'm not mistaken usually rack locomotives are limited to very slow speeds and thus are often simply changed out in mainline applications

the majority of places connected by interstates have the right-of-ways in place and closer to the city center, if i'm not mistaken about the scope of the system

Back in the 1950s New York State engaged with my employer to bypass the Village of Ballston Spa, and later the City of Saratoga Springs. Some of this was discussed with on the D&H forum. Chief Troll, who was a civil engineer with the company said that a state engineer remarked how they did not want to be involved in railroad engineering again. Apparently this was after the Saratoga project, which was the more complicated of the two. Apparently the tolerances of railroad design have to be much more exact. In both projects the state designed and built the new lines, turning them over to the company at the completion. Apparently NYS decided to let the railroad design any reroutes in the future, and only approve or disapprove them.

So we need to dynamically increase friction to handle curves and hills like a tired vehicle. Or busways / freightways to segregate traffic, or use rubber tires fultime with a rail to keep in in alignment like a slot-car. Distributed propulsion / engine braking and electronically controlled anti-lock brakes. All of this is non-standard to say the least and would cost more money but potentially less than blasting / tunneling.

Dunno.. rather than coming up with yet another new technology to try and re-purpose highway ROWs, maybe you should take a step back and ask where the need for this is??

The biggest need for new ROW I can think of is probably going to be in urban areas, and the most sensible approach there is going to be grade separation on bridging or viaducts. Designed correctly, you don't need to follow the terrain like a highway would. Curves would be interesting but if you're elevating the track, even that geometry doesn't need to be identical to the roadway geometry.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

NYC's highline comes to mind with talking of elevation separation. If things are truly desperate, street running track can be installed, and street running would have to be strictly limited to weeknights, and trains couldn't be more than a certain length.

IMO, when I first started this thread, I was more talking about highways/interstates that are ground-level, like the cross country behemoths like I-95. The trucking industry gets what seems like free access (or at least, very minute cost) to an important ROW, while railroads still have to pay property taxes, directly pay for maintenance, etc. on their ROW. I was implying that, if possible, the government should do one of the following:

A) Build rails in median of important highways where it is easy to do so, and charge little to nothing for railroads to use it. This gets complicated since you would need some sort of dispatch/signaling system too, but perhaps the government could require that railroads that use this track have to provide it themselves, to the government's standard. This option would also make sure that no single company can dominate the ROW's ownership, as shortlines, Class I's, Class II's, or any railroad that can afford to connect to this ROW and have pay for adequate signaling has access. This access, would of course, be "free," granted the railroads pay their other taxes (like income), are safe on the rails, and have adequate signaling/dispatch, and pay for/do basic maintenance.

B) Amtrak is always talking about new routes, but Amtrak seems to be limited to using existing freight routes not owned by them. Well, the Interstates and Amtrak are both owned by the federal government, so why not put some Amtrak routes down the medians of interstates where possible to do so somewhat easily? By doing so, Amtrak could get decent passenger numbers, since following an interstate's ROW surely means that the trains will go somewhere where people want to go. And most importantly, Amtrak will have priority on these rails, since they own them. Amtrak could also treat this like the Northeast Corridor, and charge railroads access to these median routes, being another point of revenue for Amtrak.

C) Sell the rights of medians to railroads so they can use it for ROW. The government could sell the rights of these interstate ROWs for a certain amount every 10 years. While one railroad could obviously dominate in this case, having to renew every 10 years or so ensures that there is some sort of competition for these coveted ROWs. A railroad could be outbid, or be evicted on bad behavior, with the contract being given to someone else.

Having highway ROWs into urban areas will be tricky due to the grades and what not others have mentioned here, but on the way to these urban centers, using some of what I have suggested, I think it would be a good way at making railroads competitive with trucks to/around these urban areas, so we can have less emissions and less traffic on said highways.

So now a car crash that takes out the highway also takes out the railroad! That's a smashing idea.

I-10 and the former SP mainline are roughly parallel through southern Arizona. I suggest you look at the difference in profile between those two routes. I-10 goes up and down every hill while the railroad cuts through or goes around those hills. (Re)building I-10 to allow a usable railroad down its median would make any solution just way more expensive than the status quo.

Even with their taxes, RRs are cost competitive with trucking, but they are not time competitive and this suggestion would do nothing to resolve that, nor do they really provide REA-style LCL services anymore (which still requires a truck to get from the shipper to the rail or from rail to receiver). If you want to remove the tax advantage to trucks, bill users of highways for their use through tolls or VMT taxes or create a Federal entity to buy existing RR ROWs and lease them back to the RRs at near-cost.

RandallW wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 4:59 am So now a car crash that takes out the highway also takes out the railroad! That's a smashing idea.

Railroads already have enough issues dealing with car accidents on their crossings. As long as there was some sort of barrier between the tracks and the roadway, like there are in existing railroads that run down interstate medians like here, https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8825655 ... 2147,589m/, there shouldn't be too much issue IMO.

RandallW wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 4:59 am I-10 and the former SP mainline are roughly parallel through southern Arizona. I suggest you look at the difference in profile between those two routes. I-10 goes up and down every hill while the railroad cuts through or goes around those hills. (Re)building I-10 to allow a usable railroad down its median would make any solution just way more expensive than the status quo.

Even with their taxes, RRs are cost competitive with trucking, but they are not time competitive and this suggestion would do nothing to resolve that, nor do they really provide REA-style LCL services anymore (which still requires a truck to get from the shipper to the rail or from rail to receiver). If you want to remove the tax advantage to trucks, bill users of highways for their use through tolls or VMT taxes or create a Federal entity to buy existing RR ROWs and lease them back to the RRs at near-cost.

All valid points. The idea to have a federal track managing entity is an idea I have heard discussed quite a lot. I know countries like the UK do something similar to that.

Even so, the amount of trackage in the United States today is less than half it's peak a hundred-ish years ago. There are some big pushes to get more rail service out, particularly for high(er) speed rail service, but the cost of buying ROWs, dealing with permits, environmental regulations, etc. is pretty steep, especially for a private entity to take on.

Utilizing highway ROWs may be pretty expensive in some instances, particularly with hills and grades, but I'd imagine trying to work with that would be far less expensive in the long-run, and far quicker to do, than trying to start "virgin" ROWs.