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: ecojpr@hofstra.edu
Paper available at:
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Jean-paul_Rodrigue
Transport Corridors
A - Feeders
B - Interconnection
■ Building connectivity
C - Corridors
D - Gateways
• 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.
Rail Track Mileage and Number of Class I Rail Carriers,
United States, 1840-2003
300,000
Rail Track Mileage
Class I Rail Carriers
250,000
180
Interconnection
Gateways
200,000
160
140
Rail Carriers
D - Gateways
C - Corridors
B - Interconnection
A - Feeders
200
120
150,000
100
Feeders
Corridors
80
100,000
60
40
50,000
20
0
1840
0
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
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.
Road
River
Rail
Maritime
Gateway
Major US Modal Gateways, 2004
Air Gateways
Exports
Land Gateways
Imports
Port of Blaine
$68 Billion
Exports
Imports
Imports
$64 Billion
Seattle-Tacoma International
Port of Seattle
Exports Port Gateways
$81 Billion
Port of Sweetgrass
Port of Pembina
Port of Tacoma
Port of Champlain-Rouses Pt.
Port of Portland
Port of Alexandria Bay
Port of Buffalo-Niagara FallsBoston Logan Airport
Port of Huron
Chicago
JFK International Airport
Port of Detroit Cleveland
Port of New York
San Francisco International Airpor
Port of Philadelphia
Port of Oakland
Port of Baltimore
Port of Norfolk Harbor
Los Angeles International Airport
Atlanta
Port of Los AngelesPort of Calexico-East
Port of Otay Mesa Station
Port of Nogales
Port of El Paso
Dallas-Fort Worth
Port of Charleston
Port of Long Beach
New Orleans
Port of Morgan City
Port of Laredo
Port of Savannah
Port of Jacksonville
Port of Beaumont Port of New Orleans
Port of Houston
Miami International Airport,
Port of Corpus Christi
Port of Brownsville-Cameron
Port of Hidalgo
Port of Port EvergladesPort of Miami
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
Location and accessibility
Order
High
Low
Specialization and interdependency
High Low
Distribution
Gateway
Flows
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, North America
continuity for international trade
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?
Alameda Corridor
§
¨¦
§
¨¦
UP & BNSF
Railyards
CBD
10
10
101
10
10
§
¨¦
§
¨¦
§
¨¦
£
¤
710
§
¨¦
10
V
U
§
¨¦
72
710
Alameda Corridor
UP & BNSF Railyards
Ground Level
Thruport
Trench (30 feet)
§
¨¦
5
V
U
42
§
¨¦ §
¨¦
§
¨¦
105 105
Mid-Corridor
Trench (10 miles)
605
V
U
19
§
¨¦
710
§
¨¦
110
V
U
91
§
¨¦
405
Port of
Los Angeles
Port of
Long Beach
V
U
1
V
U
1
V U
U
V
22
§
¨¦
22
710
V
U
47
Port of Long Beach
Port of Los Angeles
Port Cluster
0
1
2
4
6
Miles
8
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.
12
Trains per Year
40,000
10
30,000
8
6
20,000
4
10,000
10,259
14,558
15,972
17,347
0
2
0
2002
Usage
2003
Unused Capacity
2004
2005
San Pedro Ports (TEU)
San Pedro Ports (TEU)
14
50,000
Millions
Number of Trains Running Through the Alameda Corridor per Year
and Containers Handled by the San Pedro Port Cluster
Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway,
2002-2005 (TEU)
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
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)
Seoul - Busan
Tokyo - Osaka
Paris - Marseille
Madrid - Seville
London - Paris
Paris - Bruxelles
Berlin - Hannover
After
Before
Hannover - Wurzburg
Firenze - Rome
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Modal Share of the Madrid-Seville Corridor before and
after the Introduction of a High Speed Train (AVE)
2000
16.4
83.6
Air
Train
AVE
1991
67.0
0%
20%
33.0
40%
60%
80%
100%
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
The North American Landbridge
Fraser
Vancouver
Tacoma
Seattle
Halifax
Montreal
Portland
Minneapolis
Chicago
Salt Lake City
New York/New Jersey
Baltimore
Wilmington
Oakland
Kansas CIty
Hampton Roads
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Charleston
Savannah
El Paso
Jacksonville
Houston
New Orleans
Miami
Port Everglades
Altamira
Major Container Port
Major Rail Freight Distribution Center
American Landbridge
Manzanillo
Veracruz
Canadian Landbridge
Mexican Landbridge
Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dept. of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University
The Northern East-West Freight Corridor
Ru
s
Haparanda/Tornio
Narvik
si
5,600 km
a
Halifax 8 Days
1 Day
600 km
0.3 Day
Narvik 0.6 Day Tornio
970 km
1 Day
9,870 km
1 Day Vainikkala
8.2 Days
Vostochny
Vostochny
Freight Transport Sequence
Finland
Oulu
Sweden
Vainikkala
St. Petersburg
Harbin
Lianyungang
Beijing
Scandinavian Segment
Zabaykalsk
Lanzhou
Canada
Ulaanbaatar
Arctic Bridge
Irkutsk
China
Mongolia
Northern Sea Route
Northwest Passage
Russia
Urumqi
Novosibirsk
Druzhba
Lokot
Astana
New York
Boston
Yekaterinburg
Presnogorkovka
Kazakhstan
Perm'
Archangel'sk
Haparanda/Tornio
Halifax
Oulu
Vologda
Vainikkala
St. Petersburg
Moscow
Transatlantic Segment
Rail Main Trunk (Broad Gauge)
Port
Rail Main Trunk (Standard Gauge)
Rotterdam
Gauge Change
Rail Terminal
Azimuthal Equidistant Polar Projection
Brest
Rail Connector (Broad Gauge)
Rail Connector (Standard Gauge)
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).