Transcript Slide 1
Rail Freight in the U.S.
Issues and Projects
Emil Frankel
PB
March 2007
Principal Characteristics
Freight is the dominant element in the U.S. rail
system
– Less than 1% of gross ton-miles in U.S. is related to
passenger service
– That compares with 40% of gross ton-miles that is
passenger traffic in Germany, 65% in Italy, 60% in U.K., and
35% in India
– Only Russia and China compare to U.S. in the dominance of
freight on their rail networks
Almost all of the U.S. rail freight network is privateowned
– Private RR companies set rates, decide where to provide
service, and to begin/end it
Historical Context
A quarter-century ago, the industry was heavily
regulated and declining
– Reduced market share
– 9 railroads facing bankruptcy
– Aging infrastructure
Major deregulation and reform legislation was
enacted
– Staggers Rail Act of 1980
– Railroads given flexibility to reconfigure as needed
Changes after Deregulation
Railroads appropriately sized and capacity reduced to
meet freight demand
– U.S. rail network mileage decreased by 19% since 1990
Significant consolidation in rail industry
Competition among railroads, and between railroads
and other modes (particularly trucking)
Rail traffic density increased more than 3 times
between 1980 and 2006: less infrastructure carrying
more freight
Labor productivity (ton-km/employee) grew by 5
times between 1980 and 2006
Current Conditions
Major freight railroads are generally profitable
Freight infrastructure is largely modernized
Between 1987 and 1999, ton-mile traffic grew 52%
and intermodal shipments grew 73%
Lower rates accompany improved service
U.S. CLASS I RAILROADS
2005 Freight Revenue
US$44.5 billion
2005 Net Income
US$4.9 billion
Source: Association of American Railroads
Role in U.S. Economy
More than 30% of U.S. GDP is
related to trade
Increased trade = increased
U.S. freight movement
Efficient operations essential
to economic growth
– Gateway ports
– Freight hubs
– Freight network
Rail freight will play an
increasingly important role in
overall economic performance
Current Challenge
How to provide capacity and
operational efficiencies to meet
projected demand?
Some factors that produced financial
success have become limitations
– Excess rail freight capacity fully
absorbed since deregulation; reserve
capacity unavailable
– In many places, traffic will exceed
capacity
Freight volume projections are
challenging:
– U.S. freight movement expected to
double in 20 years
– U.S. rail freight tonnage expected to
grow 45% by 2020
Key Issues
Investment in new capacity is costly
It competes with the need to maintain existing
facilities/equipment
– Trend in capital expenditures is 15-20% for expansion,
remainder for maintenance
Companies tend to prioritize capital projects that will
maximize financial return
– Crowded freight corridors or bottleneck configurations may
not receive full investment needed
Improved efficiencies at major hubs and at points of
intermodal connection, and removing freight
bottlenecks, are needed to assure economic growth
Shared Projects
Improvements at hubs and bottlenecks bring both
private and public benefits, but neither sector, alone,
is willing to bear full project costs
Private benefits:
– Increased operating efficiency; lower costs; better service
Public benefits:
– Energy efficiency (rail freight is 3-10 times more efficient
than intercity trucking); reduced air and noise pollution;
better coordination with commuter and intercity passenger
rail service
“Substituting rail for long distance trucks reduces highway congestion,
road maintenance costs and truck Vehicle Miles Traveled.”
- U.S. Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Boardman, April 2006
Shared Projects – Examples
For such projects the costs should be shared, and
public-private collaboration is necessary
Examples:
– The Alameda Corridor, Southern California
– Freight Action Strategy for Everett-Seattle-Tacoma Corridor
(FAST Corridor), Washington State
– Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation
Efficiency Program (CREATE), Chicago, Illinois
– Heartland Corridor, Virginia/West Virginia/Ohio
Alameda Corridor
Originated 1981; construction began
1997; operations began 2002
Partnership:
– Los Angeles Metropolitan Council of
Governments
– Federal, state and local government
agencies
– Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles
– Private rail freight companies
Implemented by special purpose
agency (Alameda Corridor
Transportation Authority)
Original goal to improve highway
access to Ports
Focus shifted to rail access to reduce
road congestion, air pollution, and atgrade crossings
Features
Four rail lines consolidated; bridges and
flyovers constructed; streets improved
32-km corridor double-tracked; 16km in
trench to eliminate at-grade crossings
Improved connections: more
efficiency, speed and reliability in
freight movement
Project cost (US$2.4B) financed by:
– Federal, state and local grants and loans
– US$400M Federal loan
– US$1.6B in bond financing
Loans and bonds serviced/repaid from
charges on loaded and empty
containers going to and from Ports
Outcomes
Project regarded as a success, though congestion at
ports is still a factor
Traffic on the Alameda rail corridor doubled between
2002 and 2006
Significant reduction in rail congestion and
environmental pollution
Initial Federal loan repaid; other debt refinanced
However:
– Truck traffic is also increasing to serve the Ports
– It is possible that the freight congestion is simply being
moved away from the Ports and immediately adjacent
communities to points further East
FAST Corridor
Partnership of 26 entities:
– Local governments
– Ports
– Federal, state and regional agencies
– Private rail and trucking interests
Goals include:
– Improving freight mobility and access
to Ports of Everett, Seattle and Tacoma
– Improving functionality, capacity and
connectivity of regional maritime trade
– Eliminating network bottlenecks
– Providing safe at-grade crossings
Features
Individual corridor projects, some already
completed:
– Road improvements, traffic separation, grade separation,
etc.
Information exchange, financing and project
activities coordinated to benefit program goals
Private and public funding:
– US$568M since 1998 to implement 9 strategic improvement
projects and start 4 more
Improvement projects would not have progressed
without public-private cooperation
CREATE
Chicago is historic center of U.S. rail network
– Connecting point for 6 of 7 Class I Railroads
– Handles 1/3 of U.S. rail freight traffic, and significant
commuter and intercity passenger rail operations
Congestion and inefficiencies threaten rail freight
operations in Chicago hub and on national network
– Inadequate or outmoded track, switching, signaling
systems; dangerous at-grade crossings
“Chicago is in danger of becoming a bottleneck in the nation’s
transportation system, and that would have serious consequences –
not just for this city, but for the entire nation.”
- Mayor Richard M. Daley, Chicago
CREATE
Project originated in 1990
Partnership:
– City of Chicago
– State of Illinois
– U.S. Dept of Transportation
– Metra (commuter rail operator)
– 6 Class I private freight Railroads
– 3 rail-switching companies
Goals include:
– Eliminating rail-highway conflicts
– Improving safety
– Reducing rail-to-rail congestion
– Improving freight flows
Features
Includes scores of individual capital projects and
operational improvements
– Building flyovers; improving connections; modernizing and
increasing rail freight capacity
Estimated program cost US$1.5B–2B
Class I Railroads to contribute US$232M (their estimated
benefit)
Federal, state and local grants of US$300M committed
However …
– Adequate financing for all necessary improvements not in place:
private railroads reluctant to contribute more, and public financing
subject to political pressures to divert funds to other projects
– Cooperation between public and private sectors, and between
hundreds of political jurisdictions, difficult to achieve and maintain
Heartland Corridor
Norfolk Southern (NS) is 1 of 2 main
railroads serving ports on East Coast
Port volume increasing; new mega
terminals
– Suez Canal traffic to eastern U.S.
– Panama Canal expansion program
Intermodal traffic is NS’s fastest growing
commodity group for last 10 years
– For North America rail industry, intermodal
traffic now exceeds coal
NS goal:
– Improve rail freight connections to central
U.S. and to rail connections in MidWest
– Expected schedule 2007 – 2010
Features
Double-stack clearances, tunnel
and bridge improvements, track
realignments and relocations, and
expansion of intermodal terminals
Completed project will reduce
mileage on existing routing,
reduce transit times, improve
efficiency, and allow for highspeed double-stack freight
intermodal service
Project cost US$151M
– Federal funds
– Virginia and Ohio state grants
– NS investment
Summary
Private, deregulated U.S. rail industry, while financially
sound, is no longer sized to meet freight traffic volume
Inadequate capacity at ports, hubs, bottlenecks
Public or private sector not ready to undertake needed
investments alone—but together they can implement
needed programs and realize mutual benefits
Some current programs suggest U.S. rail freight network
can meet demands of expanding world trade and
associated freight movement
Many similar opportunities exist that require public-private
cooperation for implementation
THANK
YOU