Review of Issues Affecting Utilities and Road, Rail and Motorway Corridors
Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors and Regional Development
26
Building Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors: A Public Policy Forum, University of Delaware, February 21 2006 Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors and Regional Development Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Hofstra University, New York Email: [email protected] Paper available at: http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean- paul_Rodrigue
description
Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors and Regional Development. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Hofstra University, New York. Email: [email protected] Paper available at: http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue. Transport Corridors. A - Feeders. B - Interconnection. Building connectivity - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors and Regional Development
Building Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors: A Public Policy Forum, University of Delaware, February 21 2006
Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors and Regional Development
Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Hofstra University, New York
Email: [email protected] available at:http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue
Transport Corridors
■ Building connectivity• A “natural” structure; follows the
“path of least resistance”.• Connects the most accessible
locations.• Transport reinforce the
importance of some locations.• Corridors multiply this
importance through a “funnel effect”.
• Current phase of rationalization.
A - Feeders B - Interconnection
C - Corridors D - Gateways
Rail Track Mileage and Number of Class I Rail Carriers, United States, 1840-2003
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Rai
l Car
riers
Rail Track Mileage
Class I Rail Carriers
Feeders
Interconnection
Corridors
GatewaysA - FeedersB - InterconnectionC - CorridorsD - Gateways
Transport Corridors
■ Multimodal perspective• Corridors within corridors;
superposition of respective transport markets.
• Maritime: Global reach of the corridor.
• Fluvial / coastal: Structuring axis with barging potential.
• Land: Regional mobility.• Gateways: Interface with global or
regional supply chains.• Competition or complementarity;
rationalization of freight distribution.
RoadRiver
RailMaritime
Gateway
Major US Modal Gateways, 2004
Port of Miami
Port of Tacoma
Port of Seattle
Port of Houston
Port of Oakland
Port of Beaumont
Port of Portland
Port of New York
Port of Savannah
Port of Baltimore
Port of CharlestonPort of Long Beach
Port of New Orleans
Port of Morgan City
Port of Los Angeles
Port of Philadelphia
Port of Jacksonville
Port of Norfolk Harbor
Port of Corpus ChristiPort of Port Everglades
Port of Huron
Port of Blaine
Port of Laredo
Port of Hidalgo
Port of El Paso
Port of Pembina
Port of Detroit
Port of Nogales
Port of Sweetgrass
Port of Calexico-East
Port of Alexandria Bay
Port of Otay Mesa Station
Port of Brownsville-Cameron
Port of Champlain-Rouses Pt.
Port of Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Chicago
Atlanta
Cleveland
New Orleans
Dallas-Fort Worth
Boston Logan Airport
JFK International Airport
Seattle-Tacoma International
Miami International Airport,
Los Angeles International Airport
San Francisco International Airpor
Air Gateways
$68 Billion
Exports
Imports
Land Gateways
$64 Billion
Exports
Imports
Port Gateways
$81 Billion
Exports
Imports
Corridors and Regional Development
■ A perspective on regional development• Outcome of individual initiatives (entrepreneurs or corporations).• Innovations and capital formation are rewarded risks (profits)
pertaining to the allocation of capital in new ventures.■ Corridor impacts
• Corridors used to be regional structures:• Exploitation of regional comparative advantages.• Corridors and regional development strongly linked.
• Extensions of the global economy:• Consumption-based corridors.• Production-based corridors.
• 3 major paradigms to articulate this view.
Corridors and Regional Development
OrderHigh Low
Location and accessibility
High Low
Specialization and interdependency
Gateway
Flows
Distribution
Corridors and Regional Development
■ What about public policy?• Governments can try to provide infrastructure but cannot do
much about the development process itself:• Growing lack of public confidence.• History of misallocations.
• Corridors and public policy:• Growing interest to “plan” according to a corridor framework (e.g. I95
Corridor Coalition).• Consensus-based approach.• Not to fall into the “social equity” trap.
• Rail corridors are bound to play an increasing role in policy:• Providing regional accessibility in a congested setting.• Help develop a more “sustainable” national transport policy.
Shift in Public Transport Policy Perspectives
Conventional Emerging
Independent Modes Intermodal Systems
Local Economies Regional / Global Economies
Independent Jurisdictions (“turf wars”)
Coalitions / Consensus
Users (public subsidy) Customers (revenue generation)
Build (infrastructure provision) Manage (optimization of existing resources)
Plan (regulations; political signals) Market (deregulations; price signals)
Types of Rail Corridors
Type Function Examples
Short distance Modal shift, improved capacity. Public transit
Alameda, Panama
Hinterland access Expand market area, reduce distribution costs & congestion
PIDN, Virginia Inland port
Inter-metropolitan Provide accessibility to a system of cities
Europe’s HST network
Landbridge Long distance container flows, continuity for international trade
North America
Circum-hemispheric Integrated global transport chains
Northern East-West Corridor
Short Distance Rail Corridor
■ Alameda• 20 mile long rail cargo expressway:
• Linking the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail lines near Downtown Los Angeles (about 45 minutes).
• Jointly used by BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe; 40%) and Union Pacific (60%).
• Half of it underground (10 miles).• About 30% of the port transshipment traffic handled through
Alameda.• Unique example of an intermodal rail corridor; financially sound
to replicate?
§̈¦105
§̈¦110§̈¦710
§̈¦405
§̈¦10
§̈¦5
§̈¦605§̈¦105
§̈¦10
§̈¦710
§̈¦710
§̈¦10
§̈¦10
§̈¦710
§̈¦10
£¤101
UV42
UV1
UV19
UV72
UV91
UV22
UV47
UV1UV22
Alameda Corridor
Ground Level
Trench (30 feet)
0 2 4 6 81Miles
Port of Los AngelesPort of Long Beach
CBD
UP & BNSF Railyards
Mid-CorridorTrench (10 miles)
Alameda Corridor
UP & BNSF Railyards
Port of Los Angeles
Port of Long Beach
Thruport
Port Cluster
Short Distance Rail Corridor
■ Challenges for the Alameda corridor• Did not perform as expected:
• 50% less traffic than anticipated.• Significant competition from trucking.
• Local bound freight transport; 50 to 65%.• Relative transport costs:
• Efficient road logistics.• Relocation of the bottleneck down the chain.• High intermodal costs
• Trucking dependant local FDCs.
Number of Trains Running Through the Alameda Corridor per Year and Containers Handled by the San Pedro Port Cluster
10,25914,558 15,972 17,347
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2002 2003 2004 2005
Trai
ns p
er Y
ear
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mill
ions
San
Pedr
o Po
rts
(TEU
)
Usage Unused Capacity San Pedro Ports (TEU)
Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway, 2002-2005 (TEU)
010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000
100,000
2002 2003 2004 2005
Inter-Metropolitan Rail Corridors
■ Challenges and opportunities• Road congestion:
• Increases costs and lowers reliability.• Improves the distance advantages of rail (passengers and freight).
• Circulation bottlenecks:• Road access to many terminals impaired.• Aging infrastructure unable to accommodate modern operations (e.g.
double-stacking).• Intermodal capacity:
• COFC capacity at ports and inland.• Modal shift:
• Separate freight and passenger traffic; modal complementarity.• Freight diversion:
• Transloading at strategic locations.
Boston – Washington Corridor: Volume to Capacity Ratio
Rail Ownership, Intermodal Facilities and Freight Clusters
The Boston / Washington Port Hinterland
Travel Times before and after the Introduction of a High Speed Train Service for some Inter-Metropolitan Rail Corridors (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Firenze - Rome
Hannover - Wurzburg
Berlin - Hannover
Paris - Bruxelles
London - Paris
Madrid - Seville
Paris - Marseille
Tokyo - Osaka
Seoul - Busan
AfterBefore
Modal Share of the Madrid-Seville Corridor before and after the Introduction of a High Speed Train (AVE)
67.0
16.4
33.0
83.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1991
2000
Air
Train
AVE
North American High Speed Dreams
Landbridges and Circum-Hemispheric Corridors
■ Issues with rail landbridges• One of the most active and dynamic rail corridors:
• Mainly the outcome of transpacific trade.• Cooperation between rail operators and maritime shippers.• Based on a maritime / land interface:
• Efficient port container terminals.• Double-stack rail links.• LA / Chicago / NY : 80 hours.
• The Thruport challenge for long distance rail corridors:• Market fragmentation.• Supply chain fragmentation.• Ownership fragmentation.
The North American Landbridge
El Paso
Chicago
Kansas CIty
Minneapolis
Salt Lake City
Miami
Tacoma
Fraser
Seattle
Oakland
Houston
Halifax
Veracruz
Altamira
Savannah
PortlandMontreal
Vancouver
Baltimore
Manzanillo
Wilmington
Long Beach
Charleston
New Orleans
Los Angeles
Jacksonville
Hampton Roads
Port Everglades
New York/New Jersey
The North American Landbridge
Major Container Port
Major Rail Freight Distribution Center
American Landbridge
Canadian Landbridge
Mexican Landbridge
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
The Northern East-West Freight Corridor
Russia
ChinaCanada
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Kazakhstan
Mongolia
Vostochny
Lianyungang
Archangel'sk
Brest
Druzhba
Zabaykalsk
Oulu
Lokot
Perm'
Astana
Harbin
Urumqi
Beijing
Irkutsk
Lanzhou
VologdaVainikkala
Ulaanbaatar
Novosibirsk
Yekaterinburg Presnogorkovka
Halifax
Moscow
St. Petersburg
Haparanda/Tornio
BostonNew York
Rotterdam
Transatlantic Segment
Rail Main Trunk (Broad Gauge)
Rail Main Trunk (Standard Gauge)
Rail Connector (Broad Gauge)
Rail Connector (Standard Gauge)
Russia
Sweden
FinlandNarvik
Haparanda/Tornio
OuluVainikkala St. Petersburg
Port
Gauge Change
Rail Terminal
Scandinavian Segment
Azimuthal Equid istant Polar Projection
Halifax 8 Days Narvik
1 Day
Tornio0.6 Day
0.3 Day
Vainikkala1 Day
1 Day
Vostochny8.2 Days
5,600 km 600 km 970 km 9,870 km
Freight Transport Sequence
Arctic Bridge
Northern Sea Route
Northwest Passage
Conclusion
■ Global modal shift in the making• Resurgence of rail and rail corridors from the 1980s.• Strategy to accommodate transport demand, alleviate higher
energy costs and cope with congestion.■ Adaptation of rail corridors to mobility requirements
• Passengers and freight are two completely different systems.• Passengers:
• Can be competitive for medium distances.• Dubious profitability (global trend).
• Freight:• Even with intermodal efficiency, freight rail corridors remain a long
distance service.• Significant opportunities (containerization & terminal efficiency).
