i-95 corridor coalition mid-atlantic rail operations study
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study A Multi-Modal and Multi-State Study
Presentation to
American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials
Standing Committee on Rail Transportation
35th National MeetingBurlington, VT
August 27, 2002
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Summary of Key Points Five Mid-Atlantic states and three railroads, working under the
umbrella of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, studied the Mid-Atlantic rail and highway network. The Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study (MAROps) committee –
Found an urgent need for state transportation agencies to increase rail system capacity to keep pace with freight and passenger growth on already heavily trafficked and congested highways in the Mid-Atlantic region
Recommended an improvement program –
• 3 phases over 20 years to double rail freight and passenger service
• 71 infrastructure and information system projects
• $6.2 billion total
• $620 million quick-start program
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Summary of Key Points (continued)
Recommended a regional approach with initial funding from the federal government because –
• Neither the states nor the freight railroads and Amtrak can afford the larger improvements (e.g., tunnels and bridges) necessary to clear critical choke-points, and
• Costs and benefits are unevenly distributed among the states and railroads
Recommended a financing approach that would be “self-policing” because –
• States and the private sector will participate in all aspects of planning, financing, implementing, and allocating risks and returns on capital improvement projects
II-95 Corridor Coalition
MAROps Challenge
“I certainly hope increasing rail capacity and operations is a viable
strategy for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic because, as a region,
we are running out of options for building new runways and
adding new highway lanes, bridges, and tunnels.”
Joe Boardman, Commissioner, NYSDOT – Summer 2000
II-95 Corridor Coalition
MAROps Participants
Five states – Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
Three railroads – Amtrak, CSX, and Norfolk Southern
I-95 Corridor Coalition
II-95 Corridor Coalition
MAROps Scope
Examined the performance of region’s transportation system
Formulated a vision and consensus program of rail investments
Recommended a public private/partnership to implement the program
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Mid-Atlantic Rail NetworkMajor Links and Ownership
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Highway Segments with Over 10,000 Daily TrucksInterstate 95 through the Mid-Atlantic region is one of the most heavily traveled truck routes in the Nation
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Do Rail and Highway Have the Capacity to Handle Growth? In 2000
• “GDP” of Mid-Atlantic study region alone was $1.3 trillion or 13 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product
• Equivalent to the 8th largest economy in the world and the same as California
By 2020
• Population expected to grow by 4 million or 12 percent
• Domestic freight tonnage expected to increase 60 percent
• Highway travel is expected to increase from 300 to 470 trillion vehicle miles of travel, about 53 percent
Where will this growth go?
II-95 Corridor Coalition
2020Additional Truck Tons
2020Additional Rail Tons
2000Truck Tons
2000Rail Tons
Truck and Rail Domestic Freight Tonnage in 2000 and 2020 at Current Mode Shares
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Solution
Make better use of what we have
• Rail corridors have the most room for growth
- At a lower cost and “life-style” impact
- 1 rail car has the capacity of 2 to 4 trucks
• On average, railroads are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks
• Environmental advantages – rail is less polluting
• Adding highway lanes will be costly, time consuming and environmentally difficult
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Railroads Are Part of the Solution
Most of the national rail-freight infrastructure is robust
Freight railroads are running well
Billions have been spent on new rail-freight capacity
There are some choke points –
• Mid-Atlantic region – CSX and NS have capacity and clearance constraints at the very points where the road network becomes most congested
• Chicago hub
• Los Angeles and I-5 Corridor
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Rail Freight Share of Combined Truck-Rail Market by Region, 1993 and 1997
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Northeast Midwest South West U.S.
1993 1997
Calculated from U.S. Census Bureau Commodities Flow Survey data
-35.9%
-14.7%-7.0%
-13.4%
-12.0%
11
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Rail Choke Points – ExamplesPhysical points that reduce capacity compared to rest of system, and information deficiencies that constrain effective utilization of system as a whole
Howard St. Tunnel, Baltimore
Shellpot Bridge, Delaware
12
II-95 Corridor Coalition
MAROps Vision
Infrastructure and information technology improvements, covering the passenger and rail systems in the five states and the District of Columbia to double service
• Bridges and tunnels
• Capacity, connections, and clearances
• Stations, terminals, and grade crossings
• Information systems
II-95 Corridor Coalition
MAROps Program
$6.2 billion in improvements
• $2.4 billion near-term program (within 5 years)
- buildable projects where current demand exceeds supply
- planning projects with long lead times
- $620 million of quick-start projects ready now
• $1.9 billion medium-term program (5 to 10 years)
- important choke points needing design andenvironmental approvals
• $1.9 billion long-term program (10 to 20 years)
- Growth
The fullest benefit would be realized by implementing the entire $6.2 billion program
II-95 Corridor Coalition
MAROps Goals
Provide capacity and redundancy to reliably handle increased traffic
Systematically remove choke points
Handle double-stacked container trains on all main freight routes
Minimize or eliminate conflicts between passenger and freight operations
II-95 Corridor Coalition
16
MAROps Project – Example
II-95 Corridor Coalition
MAROps Program Is Multi-State
New Jersey $311 million
Pennsylvania $946
Delaware $253
Maryland $2,722
Washington, D.C. $785
Virginia $1,057
System wide $100
Total $6,174 million
17
II-95 Corridor Coalition
MAROps Program Requires Multi-State Solutions
A public/private multi-state partnership is needed to –
• Change rail capital financing if the goal is to help relieve truck and auto pressure on the region’s highways
• Bridge the gap between near-term capital needs and long-term revenues
• Facilitate direct public investments in rail projects with public benefits
• Combine and leverage public and private resources
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Reactions
All five state DOT Secretaries have been briefed
Strong endorsement of the process and product, but
• No state money on the horizon
• State “A” money cannot be used to fund State “B” improvements even though State “A” may be helped
States alone are not equipped to tackle the challenge
Challenge to the MAROps team to develop a regional financing proposal
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Financing ChallengeExisting Sources for Financing are Stretched to the Limit
CSX and Norfolk Southern invest about $2 billion annually to maintain entire networks covering eastern U.S. and to support near-term business opportunities
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states have invested $4 billion in rail since 1992, primarily to support passenger infrastructure and operations
Federal grant programs such as STP and CMAQ are heavily committed to roadway system maintenance
Federal aid is allocated by formula to the states, which must be matched by state/local funds, making it difficult to invest beyond state boundaries
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Financing Challenge (continued)
Existing Sources for Financing are Stretched to the Limit
Federal loan and credit enhancement programs have not attracted widespread-use
Joint investment/toll charge programs show some promise
• Alameda Corridor
• Delaware and Norfolk Southern – Shellpot Bridge
- Public funding of improvements
- Rail toll charges paid as used
- Risk and reward sharing
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Principles for Organizing and Financing Regional Rail Improvements Address the rail network serving a multi-state trade area
Involve the states and the freight, inter-city passenger, and commuter railroads
Provide a forum to identify needs, define improvements, describe benefits, set priorities for investment, organize multi-year programs, and evaluate results
Provide a mechanism for financing the improvements, and
Provide a mechanism for recouping investments and sharing risks and benefits
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Models Proposed for Further Examination
National Transportation Finance Corporation
• Non-federal, non-profit finance corporation enabled by Congress to grant or loan money to states or regional entities to make rail capacity improvements
• Authorize formation of regional rail advisory committees through which coalitions of states can develop a plan, set priorities, commit to funding and coordinated sharing of project risks and benefits
• Allow states and railroads working through advisory committee to negotiate project-by-project deals, and
• Toll revenues to be repaid to revolving fund
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Models Proposed for Further Examination (continued)
Regional Rail Finance or Investment Bank
• Congress establish regional rail finance corporations or investment banks
• Capitalize with federal funds, tax-credit bonds, etc.
• Other provisions similar to national corporation proposal
National Rail Network Program
• Congress establish federal aid rail program program under U.S. DOT
• Authorize Secretary DOT to underwrite one or more regional transportation coalitions
• Other provisions similar to national corporation proposal
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Benefits
Public benefits of improving the rail system
• Increased use of rail passenger
• Increased use of rail freight
• Reduced congestion on highways
• Maintain competitive business and port sectors
• Improve environment and quality of life
Public benefits accrue to the region and the nation
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Conclusion
Two futures
• Ease rail choke points and improve the efficiency, capacity, and safety of the rail system
or
• Maintain status quo for rail freight volumes and passenger trains and accept increased congestion burden on other transportation modes
II-95 Corridor Coalition
Thank You
Questions?