Chesapeake Connector: Freight and Passenger Rail Benefits

Chesapeake Connector: Freight and Passenger Rail Benefits Study

CSSC Regional Rail Partners, September 18, 2012



Project summary Key questions  Review of project documents  Interviews with stakeholders  Development of cost estimates for project alternatives  Analysis of Cost & Benefits 

Page 2







What is the economic benefit to freight railroads and regional industries? What are the benefits to passenger rail operations (intercity and commuter)? Are there economic benefits to the region if the track is a high speed passenger line, as opposed to a reliever track for freight and commuter operations?

Page 3



 



What is the cost/benefit difference between a grade separated crossing to the third track and an at-grade crossing? Where should the grade separation be located? Would the grade separation provide an expanded freight operating window on the NEC to justify the cost? Is the third track worth pursuing without a grade separated crossing? Page 4

 





Amtrak plans for High Speed Rail Commuter rail service options (2005 study found it to be difficult to justify extension of MARC or SEPTA Commuter service to Cecil County) BRAC and resulting development patterns and forecasts Outlook for freight rail users in the region

Page 5

Source: Amtrak Master Plan Black color illustrates current conditions; red illustrates near-term priorities; blue illustrates medium-term projects; and, green illustrates long-term projects. Page 6

Station

Perryville North East Elkton Newark Churchman’s Crossing Wilmington Total

2003 “Track A Feasibility Study” Results (H-1 model with old demographics)* 36 101 166 165 231 125 824

H-1 Model (updated demographics) 210 143 138 262 269 145 1167

2005-Developed Model (updated demographics) 123 104 145 251 159 275 1057

* - Figures are actually based on 2025 ridership estimates.

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff. Track A Extension Feasibility Study Phase II. MARC PENN LINE EXTENSION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION July 28, 2006

Page 7

Reviewed roughly 50 documents and reports  

 



No capital cost estimate available for project Many conclusions concerning freight impact are keyed to limited operating window at night, which is not applied by formal agreement Sufficient capacity exists to add transit service Limited outlook for freight growth along the Delmarva Introduction of HSR is a large uncertainty Page 8

Stakeholder Interviews         

Amtrak Norfolk Southern (national and regional operations) Maryland & Delaware Railroad Maryland MTA DelDOT Port of Baltimore Port of Wilmington Sussex County Economic Development Attended Delmarva Freight Summit Page 9

Freight Service Issues: Freight trains are occasionally permitted to cross from Port Road to NEC during the mid-day period  Key inbound products on the Delmarva Secondary include aggregates, coal, crude oil and supplies for the poultry industry  Growth outlook for all products is limited  Current inbound movement for freight is not time sensitive for all products  Unable to find instances where the port, a shipper, or the rail lines were unable to attract business or lost business specifically because of rail service Current data collection shows low benefits 

Page 10

Passenger Service Issues Limited transit service could be accommodated in the corridor without the Connector, modeled on operations elsewhere in the corridor  At this time, there is no confirmed date to extend MARC service along this track section  Investment in Next Generation HSR could affect the need for the Connector, but there are no firm dates or dedicated funding for HSR Existing data collection shows minimal benefits to passenger service at this time 

Page 11

Option A

Page 12

Option A at bridge over NEC

Page 13

Option B

Page 14

Cost Estimates Option A  Guideway & Track Elements:  Sitework & Special Conditions:  Systems:  ROW, Land & Existing Improvements:  Professional Services:  Unallocated Contingency  Total:

$167,257,175 $33,032,574 $24,828,636 $7,950,000 $ 78,443,359 $37,955,514 $349,467,514

Option B  Guideway & Track Elements:  Sitework & Special Conditions:  Systems:  ROW, Land & Existing Improvements:  Professional Services:  Unallocated Contingency  Total:

$49,885,500 $29,582,574 $23,9891,136 $5,460,000 $ 36,267,665 $17,023,614 $162,200,489

Page 15

 

Complete the benefit cost assessment Document findings in final report: Assess impact of Susquehanna River Bridge replacement project  Calculate impacts to existing businesses if rail freight movement is reduced on NEC due to increasing passenger service 



Present findings to Advisory Committee – October

Page 16

Page 17





Meeting with NS – Harrisburg Division Chief Spring 2012 Part of scheduled meetings for Chesapeake Connector Project

Page 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25