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