12/11/2009 - As reported by Progressive Railroading.
On Wednesday, a House and Senate conference committee approved a fiscal-year 2010 transportation appropriations bill that would fund transportation programs at higher-than-FY09 levels and finance two new transportation programs.
The bill calls for providing $8.4 billion in transit formula grants, up about $80 million compared with FY09. About $2 billion would go toward the New Starts program, including projects such as MTA Long Island Rail Road’s East Side Access ($202.5 million), New Jersey Transit’s Access to the Region’s Core ($200 million), MTA New York City Transit’s Second Avenue Subway ($197.2 million) and D.C.’s Dulles Corridor Metrorail extension ($85 million).
The transit portion of the bill would include $150 million for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) — the first time the federal budget has included additional dollars for the D.C. agency.
“This is something people in D.C. have been pushing for for a long, long time,” says National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association President Chuck Baker. “A huge chunk of their ridership is federal government workers, so there’s a case to be made that there should be more federal funding for WMATA.”
In addition, the transit bill includes $75 million to extend the Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) grant program originally developed as part of the stimulus bill.
“The FTA got all that money out really quickly, so it looks like they made their case that it’s worth keeping,” says Baker.
The House version of the bill did not include any funds for the program, while the Senate had proposed $100 million.
House and Senate conferees also approved $1.58 billion for Amtrak, up about $90 million compared with FY09. Amtrak’s appropriation would include $1 billion for capital grants, $560 million for operating subsidies and $20 million for the railroad’s inspector general office.
Within the Federal Railroad Administration budget, the conference committee approved $172 million for safety and operations, a $159 million increase vs. FY09, and $37 million for research and development, up from last year’s $34 million.
The budget allocates $50 million for railroad safety technology — “basically, positive train control,” says Baker — and $34 million for the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program, up from last year’s $25 million.
Freight railroads also could get a funding boost through the new National Infrastructure Investment program, for which the conference committee allocated $600 million for in FY10.
“The House put in nothing for this program in their bill and the Senate included $1.1 billion, so there was a huge question as to how much would be funded,” says Baker.
Similar to the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program established under the stimulus bill, the infrastructure program will be administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. All surface transportation modes would be eligible to receive grants, although the explanatory statement that accompanies the legislation “specifically calls out inland ports and freight-rail projects as appealing for this program,” says Baker. In addition, $140 million has been set aside for projects in rural areas, which could benefit freight railroads, says Baker.
The House and Senate are expected to vote on the appropriations bill soon.
— Angela Cotey
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Harvard Expansion Plans -- Comments by Jim RePass
BOSTON --- Harvard is a magnet that has for three and one-half centuries has attracted the best and the brightest of America and beyond, for both undergraduate and advanced degrees. And to all of us in Boston, its blessings are simply immeasurable.
So it is of concern that Harvard is developing an expansion plan requiring the closure of the sole Boston-area intermodal rail freight facility, Beacon Park Yard (BPY) in Allston, thereby doing major, permanent economic harm to the people of Boston, Cambridge, and all the rest of the towns and cities of Eastern Massachusetts.
Harvard’s closure of BPY will add thousands of trucks to the roadways within Route 128, and boost truck vehicle miles traveled in a region already high in the incidence of asthma and other pollution-related diseases. Harvard’s plan will also raise shipping costs, and thereby everyone’s already high cost of living, and increase the already serious congestion experienced daily by all those who use the region’s roadways. Freight traffic is expected to double over the next 20 years; we need to be looking for more rail-related shipping options, not killing off the few we’ve got.
Harvard’s plan would accelerate the relocation of Massachusetts businesses to other states, and the move of warehousing/distribution out to I-495 and beyond, creating still more truck traffic.
Worse: Harvard’s expansion plans would greatly diminish future growth prospects of the Port of Boston, rendering moot MassPort hopes to grow exponentially intermodal shipping from the current 150,000 “TEUs” (20-foot equivalent unit), service that directly contributes to the competitiveness of our region’s manufacturers and distributors. Those plans need access to quality rail intermodal service, which only BPY can provide; no BPY, and the port stagnates. An intermodal rail spur at the port, an alternative that was studied during Governor William Weld’s term, might be an appealing option; unfortunately, the port’s compact size and complex switching operation would make quality service expensive and difficult to provide. What Harvard is accelerating, sadly, is New England’s economic decline.
Harvard, like all successful institutions, must expand to survive. That is hard in the fully-developed Boston-Cambridge area, which is why Harvard has its sights set on the 91-acre Beacon Park Yard. In 2003, over objections from Boston Mayor Tom Menino and others, Harvard landed the rail yard for $75 million from its owner, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. This sale was encouraged by the Romney Administration to fund reduced tolls for FastLane users, a benefit that is about to run out.
CSX railroad, one of the nation’s major railroads, still retains the right to operate Beacon Park Yard as a rail facility, no matter who owns the underlying land. But of course, Harvard’s next step will be to pay CSX to go away, which it can easily afford to do. Harvard thinks in terms of decades, but CSX’s executives more readily think in terms of quarterly earnings reports, and the need for capital investment in the railroad. Sale of CSX’s Beacon Park Yard “rights” would satisfy a number of objectives, and as the MBTA seeks to take over the tracks from Framingham to Worcester --- as it is close to doing --- CSX may well decide it’s time to go, and consolidate work at its yard in Worcester. However, with massive expected growth in domestic and international intermodal traffic, these facilities will not be in a position to handle the additional traffic. Finding another location for a major new terminal that has the requisite rail and highway connections is extremely difficult in Eastern Massachusetts. This has been tried repeatedly over the last twenty years, without success.
SoŠ if you a buy a laptop, or a television, or an i-pod, or any one of thousands of other manufactured things, it will be coming from China via Worcester (or more likely Newark), and then by truck to you, because the [now shrinking] functions of Beacon Park Yard will be moved to Worcester. A huge jump in cost? No, just a bit more. Again.
Lots of new jobs for Worcester? No. Worcester already has two intermodal yards and can absorb Allston’s functions with few adjustments at current traffic levels. And none of the potential Boston-Allston drayage (short-haul) truck jobs from the Port of Boston will materialize in Worcester, because the distance Boston-Worcester is too long for port drayage, which requires short hauls and multiple turns per shift/truck/trucker.
And then, there is one more enormous expense related to the Harvard Allston expansion, but this one will be largely borne by the taxpayer: the only way the Allston expansion works is if the Mass Turnpike Allston interchange is moved from its present location to the opposite side of BPY. The cost to the public for this move: in excess of $500 million, and probably more. With careful planning, some of the intermodal functions at BPY could be retained if, when the turnpike is relocated to the opposite side of the parcel, the new freeway is placed as a viaduct over the new dual-track main line that would have to be built. The interchange tracks to the Grand Junction branch and perhaps the bulk transload operation at the site could also be saved. But again the expense is enormous.
Add it all up, and what Harvard needs to do is, stop. Before inking that buy-out with CSX that you are quietly preparing, stop. Before harming the transportation system of the Eastern Massachusetts region so that you can build a new campus on the wreckage, stop. Harvard, as great as it is, should allow the new Governor, Deval Patrick, and his transportation-savvy Lieutenant Governor, Tim Murray, to weigh in, before it makes the region’s fate a fait accompli.
Harvard has the time --- decades, perhaps. But the rest of us live here now, and have hope for an economic future that promises us, and our children, something to look forward to. Don’t forget about us, Harvard, as important as you are.
Note: Jim RePass is President of the National Corridors Initiative, the organization which in 1991 negotiated the release of blocked Federal funds to build the now-operating high speed rail line Boston-New York.
So it is of concern that Harvard is developing an expansion plan requiring the closure of the sole Boston-area intermodal rail freight facility, Beacon Park Yard (BPY) in Allston, thereby doing major, permanent economic harm to the people of Boston, Cambridge, and all the rest of the towns and cities of Eastern Massachusetts.
Harvard’s closure of BPY will add thousands of trucks to the roadways within Route 128, and boost truck vehicle miles traveled in a region already high in the incidence of asthma and other pollution-related diseases. Harvard’s plan will also raise shipping costs, and thereby everyone’s already high cost of living, and increase the already serious congestion experienced daily by all those who use the region’s roadways. Freight traffic is expected to double over the next 20 years; we need to be looking for more rail-related shipping options, not killing off the few we’ve got.
Harvard’s plan would accelerate the relocation of Massachusetts businesses to other states, and the move of warehousing/distribution out to I-495 and beyond, creating still more truck traffic.
Worse: Harvard’s expansion plans would greatly diminish future growth prospects of the Port of Boston, rendering moot MassPort hopes to grow exponentially intermodal shipping from the current 150,000 “TEUs” (20-foot equivalent unit), service that directly contributes to the competitiveness of our region’s manufacturers and distributors. Those plans need access to quality rail intermodal service, which only BPY can provide; no BPY, and the port stagnates. An intermodal rail spur at the port, an alternative that was studied during Governor William Weld’s term, might be an appealing option; unfortunately, the port’s compact size and complex switching operation would make quality service expensive and difficult to provide. What Harvard is accelerating, sadly, is New England’s economic decline.
Harvard, like all successful institutions, must expand to survive. That is hard in the fully-developed Boston-Cambridge area, which is why Harvard has its sights set on the 91-acre Beacon Park Yard. In 2003, over objections from Boston Mayor Tom Menino and others, Harvard landed the rail yard for $75 million from its owner, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. This sale was encouraged by the Romney Administration to fund reduced tolls for FastLane users, a benefit that is about to run out.
CSX railroad, one of the nation’s major railroads, still retains the right to operate Beacon Park Yard as a rail facility, no matter who owns the underlying land. But of course, Harvard’s next step will be to pay CSX to go away, which it can easily afford to do. Harvard thinks in terms of decades, but CSX’s executives more readily think in terms of quarterly earnings reports, and the need for capital investment in the railroad. Sale of CSX’s Beacon Park Yard “rights” would satisfy a number of objectives, and as the MBTA seeks to take over the tracks from Framingham to Worcester --- as it is close to doing --- CSX may well decide it’s time to go, and consolidate work at its yard in Worcester. However, with massive expected growth in domestic and international intermodal traffic, these facilities will not be in a position to handle the additional traffic. Finding another location for a major new terminal that has the requisite rail and highway connections is extremely difficult in Eastern Massachusetts. This has been tried repeatedly over the last twenty years, without success.
SoŠ if you a buy a laptop, or a television, or an i-pod, or any one of thousands of other manufactured things, it will be coming from China via Worcester (or more likely Newark), and then by truck to you, because the [now shrinking] functions of Beacon Park Yard will be moved to Worcester. A huge jump in cost? No, just a bit more. Again.
Lots of new jobs for Worcester? No. Worcester already has two intermodal yards and can absorb Allston’s functions with few adjustments at current traffic levels. And none of the potential Boston-Allston drayage (short-haul) truck jobs from the Port of Boston will materialize in Worcester, because the distance Boston-Worcester is too long for port drayage, which requires short hauls and multiple turns per shift/truck/trucker.
And then, there is one more enormous expense related to the Harvard Allston expansion, but this one will be largely borne by the taxpayer: the only way the Allston expansion works is if the Mass Turnpike Allston interchange is moved from its present location to the opposite side of BPY. The cost to the public for this move: in excess of $500 million, and probably more. With careful planning, some of the intermodal functions at BPY could be retained if, when the turnpike is relocated to the opposite side of the parcel, the new freeway is placed as a viaduct over the new dual-track main line that would have to be built. The interchange tracks to the Grand Junction branch and perhaps the bulk transload operation at the site could also be saved. But again the expense is enormous.
Add it all up, and what Harvard needs to do is, stop. Before inking that buy-out with CSX that you are quietly preparing, stop. Before harming the transportation system of the Eastern Massachusetts region so that you can build a new campus on the wreckage, stop. Harvard, as great as it is, should allow the new Governor, Deval Patrick, and his transportation-savvy Lieutenant Governor, Tim Murray, to weigh in, before it makes the region’s fate a fait accompli.
Harvard has the time --- decades, perhaps. But the rest of us live here now, and have hope for an economic future that promises us, and our children, something to look forward to. Don’t forget about us, Harvard, as important as you are.
Note: Jim RePass is President of the National Corridors Initiative, the organization which in 1991 negotiated the release of blocked Federal funds to build the now-operating high speed rail line Boston-New York.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Opportunity -- Existing Rail Network
The Worcester and Metro-West area has a network of existing rail lines that could provide needed relief to the regions roadway traffic -- both truck and passenger vehicles. (Note: Click on Map to Expand)
Streaching from Worcester eastward to Boston is the CSX Boston Line -- providing an alternative to The Mass Pike and Route 9. South from Worcester is the Providence and Worcester line that traverses the Blackstone Valley to Providence providing an alternative to Route 146. Running from North Grafton to Milford is the G&U freight line that ties in with CSX and MBTA's Franklin Commuter Line. This provides relief from traffic on I-495. Both the P&W and G&U lines provide an alternative freight and commuter route into the Boston-Metro area. Heading northeast from Worcester is the PanAm Ayer Branch that links with the MBTA's Fitchburg Line and South from Fitchburg is the CSX freight line through Leominster, Lancaster, Clinton, Northborough, Marlborough and Southborough -- all towns without commuter rail. These lines provide an alternative to I-495, Route 20 and I-190. From Framingham southward to Walpole and Mansfield is another key connector line that bisects with the Amtrak Northeast Corridor and on to the SouthCoast area via Attleboro. This route provides reiief to I-95, 128 and 24 and 27.
In total these lines provide significant opportunity to handle the anticipated growth in roadway traffic and a green alternative for both the movement of freight and people. Note that the color coding on the map relates to the Massaschuseets Planning Organization territory boundaries. Certainly these groups will need to get together on a unified plan...
Freight rail more than doubles trucks' fuel efficiency
11/20/2009 From Progressive Railroading: Eye on the Environment. Freight rail more than doubles trucks' fuel efficiency, FRA study shows.
Yesterday, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released a study showing freight-rail fuel efficiency increased 22 percent between 1990 and 2006.
Entitled “Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors,” the study determined that diesel-electric locomotive improvements, increased double-stack train usage, track and signal upgrades, and longer trains were the primary fuel-efficiency drivers.
Conducted by ICF International, the study found that rail fuel efficiency varies from 156 to 512 ton-miles per gallon while truck fuel efficiency ranges from 68 to 133 ton-miles per gallon.
Yesterday, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released a study showing freight-rail fuel efficiency increased 22 percent between 1990 and 2006.
Entitled “Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors,” the study determined that diesel-electric locomotive improvements, increased double-stack train usage, track and signal upgrades, and longer trains were the primary fuel-efficiency drivers.
Conducted by ICF International, the study found that rail fuel efficiency varies from 156 to 512 ton-miles per gallon while truck fuel efficiency ranges from 68 to 133 ton-miles per gallon.
Case Study: Freight Rail drives Industrial Development Project on Long Island, NY.
Reported by Railway Age, Thursday, November 19, 2009
A $5 million grant paves the way for new railroad spur in New York. A $4.8-million federal grant will let Riverhead Town, N.Y., live out its longtime dream of having freight trains running to and from the Enterprise Park at Calverton, the Riverhead News Review reports. The entire cost of rehabbing the Calverton rail spur, which leads into the park, will be funded with federal stimulus money, lawmakers said. "Not only will these funds create needed construction jobs in Riverhead and ease traffic congestion along highways, but it will lower the cost of transporting goods on Long Island," U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "This project is a win-win-win for Long Island," said Congressman Tim Bishop (D-Southampton), who, along with Schumer, helped secure the funds. "Transporting goods by freight to and from Calverton will lower the costs of goods, create jobs and remove trucks from our crowded roadways." The spur, which hasn't been in use for a quarter-century, runs along Connecticut Avenue before linking up with the Long Island Rail Road's main line. It was used by the Grumman Corporation to transport materials when the company built Navy fighter jets at the site, which is now referred to as EPCAL. Grumman abandoned operations in 1994, with the Navy turning the land over to the town for economic development. Above all, local officials are hoping the option to ship materials by rail will increase the attractiveness of Calverton to potential developers and business owners. "This award is monumental in terms of infrastructure to support long-term economic development for EPCAL and the East End region," said John Dunleavy, a Riverhead Town Board member. The town, which was recently awarded a $650,000 grant from the state for the spur project, has begun preliminary planning and engineering work. It also expects to start negotiating with the Long Island Rail Road and the New York and Atlantic Railway, a freight company, according to Christine Kempner of the town Community Development Agency. Lawmakers noted that less than two percent of goods are brought to Long Island by train, the lowest percentage of any metropolitan area served by rail. One example of a benefit of a rail spur, according to the press release issued by Schumer and Bishop, would be the price of stone, which is higher on Long Island than anywhere in the state. "Building and road construction on Long Island uses millions of tons of stone," the release reads. "This spur would help reduce the price of stone and has been requested by regional quarries for years."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
A model for Boston -- CSX to create double-stack corridor in Philadelphia.
From Progresssive Railroading: Yesterday, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and CSX Corp. Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Michael Ward marked the construction of a double-stack corridor designed to expand Philadelphia's freight transportation options and position the region for growth.
The project calls for clearing 16 overhead bridges to foster a faster and more-efficient intermodal connection with the Midwest. The corridor will be funded by $10 million from two federal sources, $10 million from the commonwealth and more than $12million from CSX.
Editor's note: Unlike the doublestaking plan in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania is encouraging the expansion of intermodalism and terminals within the city of Philadelphia. Their plan will integrate port and rail access and will not have the collateral impacts of increased truck traffic from intermodal terminals outside of Philadelphia's urban core. Pennsylvania's Govenor, Ed Rendell has been outspoken and supportive of rail and transportation infrastructure initiatives as a key ingredient of long term business development.
The project calls for clearing 16 overhead bridges to foster a faster and more-efficient intermodal connection with the Midwest. The corridor will be funded by $10 million from two federal sources, $10 million from the commonwealth and more than $12million from CSX.
Editor's note: Unlike the doublestaking plan in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania is encouraging the expansion of intermodalism and terminals within the city of Philadelphia. Their plan will integrate port and rail access and will not have the collateral impacts of increased truck traffic from intermodal terminals outside of Philadelphia's urban core. Pennsylvania's Govenor, Ed Rendell has been outspoken and supportive of rail and transportation infrastructure initiatives as a key ingredient of long term business development.
Massachusetts spends stimulus dollars on MBTA trackwork laborers
11/17/2009 Progressive Railroading reports Massachusetts spends stimulus dollars on MBTA trackwork laborers. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick recently announced the state will use stimulus funds to hire 15 track laborers to help upgrade a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter-rail line.
The $9 million project, which is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and state’s recovery plan, calls for modernizing the Fitchburg line along MBTA’s 50-mile corridor from Fitchburg to Boston. The line is the longest in MBTA’s system in terms of distance and travel time.
The project will enable the authority to increase capacity and provide faster travel times on the line, according to MBTA. The authority has applied for additional stimulus funds to complete double tracking on the line, which would boost train speeds up to 80 mph, improve on-time performance up to 12 percent, and reduce operating and maintenance costs, MBTA officials said in a prepared statement.
Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad retains a contract to operate and maintain MBTA’s commuter-rail network.
The $9 million project, which is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and state’s recovery plan, calls for modernizing the Fitchburg line along MBTA’s 50-mile corridor from Fitchburg to Boston. The line is the longest in MBTA’s system in terms of distance and travel time.
The project will enable the authority to increase capacity and provide faster travel times on the line, according to MBTA. The authority has applied for additional stimulus funds to complete double tracking on the line, which would boost train speeds up to 80 mph, improve on-time performance up to 12 percent, and reduce operating and maintenance costs, MBTA officials said in a prepared statement.
Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad retains a contract to operate and maintain MBTA’s commuter-rail network.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Get Involved!
Until the creation of EMFRC, Massachusetts has no organized forum focused exclusively on freight rail interests in Eastern Massachusetts. We seek to promote and support actions by both public and private entities geared to leveraging Freight Rail’s recognized benefits for economic development, environmental and congestion relief, fuel economy, easing the strain on public infrastructure, and fostering improved land use.
Prospective EMFR Coalition members include:
Active freight rail users in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Southern Maine that receive goods from Eastern Massachusetts via rail.
Logistics service vendors (local cartage firms, transloaders, warehousemen, etc.)
Public sector units/elements whose own respective charters have synergies with EMFRC's
Special interest groups (environmental, land use, planners, etc.)
Freights RR’s (segmented as below):
a. line-haul RR’s that now serve eastern Mass
b. connecting shortlines in the area
c. other freight RR’s operating in MA
Communities and other citizen groups seeking to improve transportation infrastructure.
If you would like to get involved send an email to:
info@emfrc.org
Prospective EMFR Coalition members include:
Active freight rail users in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Southern Maine that receive goods from Eastern Massachusetts via rail.
Logistics service vendors (local cartage firms, transloaders, warehousemen, etc.)
Public sector units/elements whose own respective charters have synergies with EMFRC's
Special interest groups (environmental, land use, planners, etc.)
Freights RR’s (segmented as below):
a. line-haul RR’s that now serve eastern Mass
b. connecting shortlines in the area
c. other freight RR’s operating in MA
Communities and other citizen groups seeking to improve transportation infrastructure.
If you would like to get involved send an email to:
info@emfrc.org
Presentation by Dan Wahle of the Mass Coastal Railroad
Next Meeting of the RTAC Freight Committee will be on Wednesday November 18, 2009. It will begin at 1 PM in the MPO's Conference Room, Suite 2150 of the State Transportation Building, 10 Park Plaza, Boston. A full Advisory Council meeting will follow at 3 PM in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 of the State Transportation Building.
The highlight of the November Freight Committee meeting is a presentation by Dan Wahle of the Mass Coastal Railroad. The agenda will also include a briefing on House Bill 3355 to Create a State Infrastructure Bank.
The highlight of the November Freight Committee meeting is a presentation by Dan Wahle of the Mass Coastal Railroad. The agenda will also include a briefing on House Bill 3355 to Create a State Infrastructure Bank.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
