Posts about Freight Rail
Transit
Weekend reading: Hauling freight
While American passenger rail often leaves much to be desired, our freight rail network is second to none. This privately owned and operated network often finds itself at odds with desires for increased passenger service and high speed operations.
Amtrak and Union Pacific trains pass each other. Photo by SP8254.
Hauling the Freight: Freight rail companies have been reluctant to embrace the recent enthusiasm for high speed rail. In a recent article from the Economist, railroads expressed all sorts of concerns, from technical considerations for offering mixed-speed service along shared passenger and freight lines to a complete re-regulation of the industry, which was de-regulated in 1980.
One such pending requirement will be use of Positive Train Control (PTC) on all routes where freight and passenger trains share the same tracks.
Freight railroads fear a return to the bad old days. From the Economist article:
Federal and state grants will flow to the freight railroads to help them upgrade their lines for more and faster passenger trains. But already rows are breaking out over the strict guidelines the [Federal Railroad Administration] will lay down about operations on the upgraded lines, such as guarantees of on-time performance with draconian penalties if they are breached and the payment of indemnities for accidents involving passenger trains. The railroads are also concerned that the federal government will be the final arbiter of how new capacity created with the federal funds will be allocated between passenger and freight traffic. And they are annoyed that there was little consultation before these rules were published.There have been some heated meetings between freight-railroad managers and FRA officials. Henry Posner III, chairman of Iowa Interstate Railroad, ruefully notes that freight railroads, in the form of passengers and regulation, "are getting back things that caused trouble".
Prior to de-regulation, American railroads had obligations to offer money-losing passenger services, dealt with heavy taxation, and paid for their own infrastructure in the face of heavy subsidized interstate highways undercutting their core markets. Mark Ruetter documented these challenges back in an excellent 1994 Wilson Quarterly article entitled "The Lost Promise of the American Railroad."
One core issue is defining the best balance between public and private interests. America's railroads are private enterprises, and back in the day where they dominated all travel and enjoyed de facto monopolies on various markets, they were regulated accordingly. As transportation infrastructure financing shifted towards public funding (such as the interstate highway system), the regulatory structure did not evolve to meet the new realities.
The current debate is essentially one of re-defining the proper roles for each of the partners in this mother of all public-private partnerships. Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic suggests that the Economist's take isn't as dire as the railroads might make it seem:
If the public is committed to the funding of improved tracks along privately owned freight corridors, it has the right to demand that those companies allow passenger trains to run along them. From that perspective, the freight companies have little room to complain.These changing roles are not without tension. The California High Speed Rail project has run into problems in their negotiations with the Union Pacific Railroad. Likewise, DC has been involvedBut the federal government does have a long-term interest in promoting investments that offer improvements in both freight and passenger offerings. Freight lines that run through the center of cities should be moved to new routes that detour, allowing passenger services to take over these access corridors much more essential for people than for cargo. Lines running both passenger and freight trains should be expanded to three or more tracks to allow multiple running speeds in both directions. Projects could theoretically be sponsored by public-private partnership, using both government and freight company funds directed to investments that benefit both.
Coordination needs to encompass technical questions (Standards for train control? Shared track? Dedicated track? Electrification?) as well as financial ones (Who will pay for these infrastructure upgrades? What kind of control will come with public dollars?)
Get on the Bus: Aaron Renn writes about bus service improvements over at The Urbanophile, building off of this New York Magazine piece on New York's new select bus service. The article outlines many relatively cheap and easy to implement programs that can vastly improve the bus experience - fare pre-payment, limited stops, exclusive lanes, multi-door boarding, etc. Renn writes:
[C]learly there is enormous opportunity in the US to start transforming the transportation infrastructure of our cities with high quality bus service in a way that is faster, cheaper, and much more pervasive than we'd ever be able to achieve with rail.In the piece, Jarrett Walker highlights Jay Walder's quote on taking bus lanes seriously. He also notes, however, that such seriousness is not without compromises. Others, such as Cap'n Transit, have noted that while these bus improvements are tremendous, we should be careful to not oversell them, as many often do with terms such as a "surface subway."
Cross-posted at City Block.
Public Spaces
Bridge will connect trail, Edgewood to RI Ave Metro
The Rhode Island Avenue Metro station sits high above Rhode Island Avenue, east of and above the railroad tracks. Riders who want to get to the Edgewood neighborhood to the northwest must follow a very circuitous route.
Woman crossing CSX tracks. Photo by Stephen Miller.
They must descend on a long, sloping, and ugly pedestrian ramp across the avenue, then curve in a sort of pedestrian cloverleaf around to the sidewalk. They must then traverse a very narrow sidewalk under the railroad tracks, with traffic speeding past and no parked car buffer.
Understandably, many people don't want to do all this, and therefore they simply cut through the fence from the pedestrian bridge to the CSX/Amtrak railroad tracks, walk across them at grade, and end up along the new segment of the Metropolitan Branch Trail next to the parking lot of the strip mall.
More fencing didn't stop this behavior, so DDOT did the logical thing: they designed a bridge to carry people along the most direct path from where they are to where they want to go. The new bridge will start "behind" the current Metro station, with an opening in what's now the rear wall of the area just outside the turnstiles. It will then rise up above the tracks, cross over them, and descend back down to the Met Branch Trail.
Rendering of the proposed bridge. Image from DDOT.
A staircase will let pedestrians walk directly down to the trail and the strip mall parking lot, while a longer ramp will accommodate cyclists and people with disabilities.
Image from DDOT. The Metro station is in the lower left. The bridge is in blue, the trail in green. North is to the upper right.
That strip mall, by the way, housed a recently-closed Safeway. A better connection to transit could help retail succeeed here where it's recently failed. Plus, the bridge adds a lot of potential for transit-oriented and walkable and bikeable development at that site and the other commercial parcels right on Rhode Island Avenue.
According to DDOT's Heather Deutsch, CSX doesn't allow any bridges over their property with openings in the side larger than a certain, small size to prevent people from dropping things onto the tracks. However, a tight mesh would mean that at an oblique angle, it would look opaque, limiting sight lines from the bridge to the surrounding area and from the area to the bridge. Therefore, DDOT will use a solid, transparent material to maintain visibility from all angles.
The bridge is expected to open in fall of 2011. You can see the new trail segment and the planned area for the bridge at tomorrow's Meet the Met party on the trail, sponsored by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. The main event is right at the location of the future bridge.
There will be community bike rides to the event from places across the region, including Maryland and Virginia. Rails-to-Trails is also looking for volunteers for tomrorow's event. You can also sign up for email updates about the trail.
Transit
CSX's proposed community amenities
Matt Johnson's post on CSX's plans for Virginia Avenue has generated a very large debate. Jacqueline Dupree scanned in the sketch showing some of CSX's ideas for how its project might improve the immediate area.
Those include better underpasses across Virginia Avenue, a new connection at 2nd Street between Garfield and Canal Parks, and a relocated Virginia Avenue that would "create space for a greenway."
Commenters seem divided over whether the regional benefits do or should outweigh the local inconvenience, and whether the prosperous CSX railroad ought to pay for the improvements without public help. These plans don't answer any of those questions, but provide more food for debate.
Transit
CSX plans for Virginia Avenue Tunnel replacement
One of the worst rail bottlenecks on the east coast is Washington's Virginia Avenue Tunnel. While the tunnel originally carried two tracks, it was narrowed to one to allow taller and wider freight cars. With growing freight rail traffic across the united States, the century-old tunnel is in dire need of replacement.
As a part of CSX's National Gateway initiative, the railroad wants to rebuild the tunnel to have two tracks and a higher clearance. This will, in conjunction with other improvements in the region, allow double-stack trains to travel from the Port of Baltimore to the Southeast and trains from the Southeast to travel to the Midwest.
The Virginia Avenue Tunnel project will also reduce congestion for commuter rail riders in the region caused by freight trains waiting for their turn to use the tunnel. In conjunction with other improvements, the tunnel project will allow Amtrak, MARC, and VRE to add more trains in the future.
The 4000-foot long tunnel runs for 9 blocks under Virginia Avenue in Southeast Washington. It carries CSX freight trains from an eastern portal at 11th Street to a western portal near at 2nd Street. Freight traffic traveling from the Southeastern United States to lines running to the Midwest and Northeast must pass through the Virginia Avenue Tunnel. No passenger trains operate through the tunnel because those trains travel through Union Station and the First Street Tunnel.
Monday afternoon, CSX invited several bloggers for an update on the status of the project.
The National Gateway project as a whole got a boost earlier this year when it was awarded a TIGER grant for $98 million to raise clearances at 38 locations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. There are a remaining 23 projects that must be undertaken, including 13 projects in the region, before CSX's National Gateway will allow double-stack trains to travel between ports on the east coast and Chicago.
The single largest clearance project remaining is the Virginia Avenue Tunnel, which is expected to cost $160 million to replace. CSX is still hoping to receive federal funding for the project, which is contingent to its construction. CSX is looking toward the transportation reauthorization as one source of funding for the project, but President Obama has put that on the back-burner. Another round of TIGER could also provide gains for the project. The US Department of Transportation has already expressed support in the project by funding a portion of the National Gateway. Another feather in CSX's cap is the support of 6 state governors. In fact, Virginia has already spent $26 million toward the tunnel replacement.
In order to replace the tunnel, CSX will undertake a construction program lasting 2-3 years. It wouldn't start before late 2011 at the earliest, and CSX plans to undertake a NEPA environmental impact statement prior to that, which would take 6 months to a year to complete. During the construction period, Virginia Avenue would be closed between 2nd Street and 11th Street SE. CSX representatives say that all cross streets will remain open during construction, with vehicular and pedestrian access, except for short closings to construct temporary structures over through the construction site.
During the tunnel replacement, a temporary trench will be dug south of the existing tunnel. It would be 20-25' wide and about 25' deep. Trains would run in this trench until the tunnel project has been finished. After the tunnel is complete, the trench will be filled back in.
The tunnel itself will have it's top removed. The trackbed will be lowered several feet and the walls will also be widened. Once this is complete, a new roof will be put on top and recovered with soil and Virginia Avenue.
All construction will take place within the right-of-way, which is about 100 feet wide. Although Virginia Avenue would be closed, access will be maintained to properties throughout the process. One of the most difficult areas to work around is the new development which is currently under construction along Virginia Avenue between 3rd and 4th Streets SE. CSX officials said that they would consider decking over the trench in this area if necessary to maintain access.
After the tunnel is complete and the trench refilled, the Virginia Avenue corridor will see some improvements, including new streetscaping and furniture. Additionally, a bikeway linking to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail will be constructed along the Virginia Avenue axis.
But benefits will extend beyond Southeast DC. Commuters on MARC's Brunswick and Camden Lines and on both VRE lines will see fewer delays. With more freight moving by rail, drivers will also see fewer trucks on the roads and less pollution in the air.
(Comment)
Transit
Washington's rails, part 5: Unbottlenecking Baltimore
Last time, I discussed the National Capital Planning Commission's study about relocating freight rail out of downtown DC. Their proposed bypasses would be expensive, but would have advantages for freight traveling up the East Coast. However, the NCPC Report notes the proposed Washington bypasses will not expand capacity much without other projects are in the Mid-Atlantic. One of the most important projects is replacement of the Howard Street Tunnel. Like the Northeast Corridor, CSX's freight route along the East Coast is constrained by Baltimore's antiquated rail infrastructure. In the same report where they looked at replacing Amtrak's B&P Tunnel, the Federal Railroad Administration also looked at constructing a new freight route through Baltimore. Here's a detailed map of Baltimore's freight routes and tunnels.
The most likely candidate involves rerouting freight trains from the main line near Mount Wynans Yard and running them north along the Hanover Subdivision. Near where the Northeast Corridor crosses over the Hanover Subdivision, they would enter a tunnel parallel to or under the Northeast Corridor and then would parallel the Great Circle Passenger Tunnel. The new freight tunnel would be a double-stack capable, twin bore tunnel. Emerging alongside the passenger tunnels north of Penn Station, freight trains would run alongside the Northeast Corridor through Penn Station (on separate tracks), the Union Tunnels (in the northern tunnel), and through East Baltimore. While running alongside the Northeast Corridor, freight trains would have their own tracks, and would not share with Amtrak trains. At Bay View, freight trains would rejoin the main line. Alternatively, trains could be run from the Great Circle Freight Tunnel onto the Baltimore Belt Line, which runs through Charles Village. However, that route has more obstacles and is unlikely to be chosen.
On the other hand, the FRA report also considered a tunnel under the Baltimore Harbor. While this route is longer, more circuitous, and less convenient to existing rail infrastructure, the FRA found only one route to be acceptable. This route would take trains from Mount Wynans down the Curtis Bay branch. It would cross under the Harbor at Marley Neck, just outside of and parallel to the Francis Scott Key (Baltimore Beltway) bridge. It would surface near the Sparrows Point steel manufacturing plant and head north along the Norfolk Southern spur serving the plant. At that point, it would meet the CSX Philadelphia Subdivision at the Bay View Yard. This alternative is not shown in the above schematic, but the FRA report has some good visuals.
The Howard Street Tunnel is one of the worst bottlenecks in the Mid-Atlantic. A replacement is long overdue, but will be a large undertaking. One of the advantages of relocating freight into a new tunnel is that the Howard Street Tunnel would be available for commuter trains on MARC's Camden Line. Trains could easily be extended from Camden Station through the tunnel to Mount Royal, Charles Village, and then to Bay View by way of the Baltimore Belt Line. In fact, the Maryland Transit Administration's MARC expansion plan calls for that extension after the tunnel is replaced. Theoretically, the Camden Line could be extended further north, toward Joppatowne, but MTA does not have that on their to-do list yet.
Transit
Washington's rails, part 4: the long way 'round
In the earlier installments of this three-part series, I discussed Washington and Baltimore's rail networks, CSX's plans for upgrading their infrastructure in the region to handle taller trains, and projects for which Maryland has requested stimulus funding. Many of the comments referenced a study on detouring freight trains around Washington which completed by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) in 2007.
NCPC views the presence of freight rail in downtown Washington as problematic for several reasons. Transporting hazardous materials by rail through the core of the city poses a security risk. Infrastructure constraints limit the movement of goods. And using historic street rights-of-way for railroads disrupts the urban fabric.
The study looked at the feasibility of relocating freight rail to other corridors. The study team developed alternatives that would to mitigate the security concerns, eliminate impediments to the public's access to the Anacostia River, accommodate state-of-the-art railroad infrastructure, and enable expansion of freight and passenger rail capacity in the Washington region.
Because 99% of rail freight using tracks in the District is passing through, NCPC looked at ways to reroute trains around the District. The primary focus of the NCPC study was the northeast-south CSX freight line running from Baltimore (and points north) to Fredericksburg (and points south). While impacts to the line running toward Cumberland (and points west) were considered, that line was not the focus of the study. The report looked at a multitude of corridors, but excluded most as infeasible. The team narrowed the study to three finalists:
Each of the scenarios includes removing the CSX track between the Amtrak connection at 2nd Street SW and the Maryland border, including the Benning Rail Yard on the east shore of the Anacostia. All rail traffic going across the Long Bridge over the Potomac would use the First Street Tunnel and would pass through Union Station. All freight traffic would take the new bypass except for service to the Capitol Power plant, which would retain a spur. Here is a map showing the freight routes through DC in more detail.
DC Tunnel Alternative: This alternative represents the shortest detour for freight trains. It would construct a nine mile long twin-bore tunnel, with each bore capable of handling double-stack intermodal trains. The tunnel would start near where the CSX RF&P Subdivision crosses Four Mile Run at the Alexandria/Arlington border. It would cross under the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and would emerge where the CSX Alexandria Extension crosses the District/Maryland border. Trains would continue up the Alexandria Extension as they do today diverging at the wye at Hyattsville for trips to the Northeast or Mid-West. The Alexandria Extension, which is currently single-tracked, would need to be double-tracked under this alternative.
Indian Head Alternative: Under this alternative, a new 2.5 mile long bridge over the Potomac would be constructed between Arkendale, Virginia and the Maryland shore. In Maryland, the line would turn north and run parallel to the Potomac to the east of Indian Head. This new facility would connect the existing RF&P Subdivision just south of the Marine Corps base at Quantico to the formerly US Government-owned branch line between Indian Head and Waldorf.
At Waldorf, a new connection would be built to the Pope's Creek Secondary allowing trains to turn north toward Upper Marlboro. The Pope's Creek Secondary would need to be double-tracked all the way from Waldorf to old Bowie. From Bowie to Odenton, a new line would be constructed adjacent to the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC). A connector to CSX's Capital Subdivision would be constructed parallel to and between the Patuxent River and Maryland Route 32. At it's intersection with the Capital Subdivision, a wye would allow trains to turn north toward Baltimore or south toward Washington, Cumberland, Pittsburgh, and points west.
Dahlgren Alternative: This proposal would require a new connection between the RF&P Subdivision south of Fredericksburg to the Dahlgren Branch. It would also require a reactivation of part of the abandoned section of the Dahlgren Branch in King George County, which is now a rail trail. Much of the alignment in King George would be a new alignment parallel to US Route 301. At Dahlgren, a new two-mile long railway drawbridge would be constructed near the US 301 Potomac Bridge. On the eastern shore of the Potomac, the new line would meet the Pope's Creek Secondary. From Morgantown to Bowie, the Pope's Creek Secondary would be double-tracked. The Dahlgren Alternative would follow the same Waldorf-Jessup alignment as the Indian Head route.
The DC Tunnel alignment has the highest cost of the three alternatives, likely costing between $4.7 and 5.3 billion. However, it yields the largest time savings. For general merchandise freight, trains would save 40 minutes in the Washington region. The Dahlgren alternative would cost $3.5 to 4.7 billion, and save 23 minutes, giving this alternative the smallest trip time benefit. The Indian Head route is cheapest, at an estimated $3.2 to 4.3 billion, and would save around 31 minutes. These trip times reflect trains moving along the east coast, not those traveling from south to northwest or from northeast to northwest.
For trains headed from the northeast to the northwest, little would change. With the Washington bottleneck removed, trains would face less delay approaching Washington, but they would still travel to within sight of Union Station before turning northwest. Trains coming from the south and turning to the northwest would follow a similar path to today's under the DC Tunnel alternative. Now, trains coming from the south and heading toward the midwest are saddled with a winding trip through the city (Alexandria to Capitol Hill to Deanwood to Hyattsville to Ivy City to Silver Spring). The other two alternatives increase the distance that trains must travel to make that trip. Instead of heading north as far as Hyattsville before turning south, south-northeast trains would have to head all the way to Jessup before turning toward Washington and the midwest.
Added by Matt
NCPC's plans are not funded, nor has an alternative been selected. It is unlikely that any of the bypasses would be operating before 2017 at the earliest.
Transit
Washington's rails, part 3: Maryland's wish list
Last week, the State of Maryland submitted a request for $360 million in stimulus funding for rail improvements to the Northeast Corridor (MDOT press release). Of course, Maryland is not the only applicant, so it is likely that some of these projects will not be funded. However, the list includes seven important projects which will improve the travel of commuters, inter-city (Amtrak) passengers, and freight through the region.
Amtrak AEM7 at Bowie, MD.
Funding was requested for the following projects:
- BWI Station & Track Improvements: Maryland is requesting $10 million for engineering work and studies which would reconfigure the BWI Airport MARC/Amtrak station (pic). The project would finance the study of constructing a new station building, platforms for all four tracks, and the construction of a fourth track along 9 miles of the Northeast Corridor from Grove Interlocking (north of Odenton) to Wynans Interlocking (south of Halethorpe).
- Northern Maryland Bridge Replacement: Another $200 million would go to engineering studies for the replacement of the two-track bridges over the Gunpowder, Bush, and Susquehanna Rivers with three-track bridges. This would speed trains between Baltimore and Wilmington. It is noteworthy to mention that the narrowing of the Northeast Corridor from three tracks to two tracks at the two-track Gunpowder River Bridge contributed to the fatal Chase, Maryland rail crash on 4 January 1987.
- Washington Wedge Yard: This request for $36 million would fund final design and construction of a six-track train storage yard at Washington Terminal (Union Station). During the day, MARC trains would be stored here. Currently, MARC runs trains to Baltimore during the day for storage. At night, Amtrak trains would be stored in the wedge yard.
- Chesapeake Connector: This project provides $25 million in funds for engineering for a third track to be constructed along 6.3 miles of the Northeast Corridor, from Prince Interlocking north of Perryville to Bacon Interlocking north of Northeast, Maryland. The project will improve freight rail access to the Delmarva Peninsula and the Port of Baltimore. Additionally, this two-track section is one major obstacle to extending commuter rail service to Newark, Delaware on the Northeast Corridor. Delaware is a cosponsor.
- Positive Train Control: $10 million in funding for this project is requested. The money would provide for the implementation of a GPS-based train location system for MARC trains operating on the Penn and Brunswick Lines.
- Brunswick Line Signaling Improvements: This $18.3 million request would provide for the updating of signals on CSX's Metropolitan Subdivision from Silver Spring to Brunswick. It would improve reliability for freight, MARC trains, and Amtrak's Capitol Limited.
- Engineering Study, B&P Tunnel Replacement: $60 million request. See below.
Replacement of the B&P Tunnel
One of the most important rail projects in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast is replacing the B&P Tunnel in Baltimore. To emphasize its importance, a report (PDF) by the Federal Railroad Administration in 2005 showed that fully one-fifth (20%) of Amtrak passenger-trips pass through at least one of Baltimore's two Northeast Corridor (NEC) tunnels.
In Baltimore, the Amtrak Northeast Corridor approaches from the south and turns east to enter the B&P Tunnel (pic). At the eastern end of the B&P Tunnel, trains stop at Penn Station. Continuing east, trains pass through the Union Tunnels (pic).
A study to replace the aging tunnel is among the funding requested by Maryland. The requested $60 million will fund engineering and feasibility studies, not the actual replacement of the tunnel. A 2005 Federal Railroad Administration study estimated that the cost of replacing the B&P Tunnel would be around $550 million.
The current two-track, single-bore tube is almost 8,000 feet long and has two sharp curves. Because of the curve near the western end of the tunnel, the entire tunnel has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. It presents a significant bottleneck for Northeast Corridor traffic, including MARC and Amtrak trains. For the Norfolk Southern freight traffic using the NEC at night, the tunnel profile presents an impediment to wide and tall cargoes. In addition, studies by Amtrak suggest that the tunnel needs to be replaced within two decades because of increasing maintenance issues.
A Federal Railroad Administration study from 2005 looked at potential alternatives for replacing the B&P Tunnel. The 2005 study was not the engineering-type study which Maryland hopes to fund with the stimulus grant. However, it laid out several options for moving passengers through Baltimore. Most options were eliminated for various reasons, whether cost, track geometry, or practicality.
The tunnel option the report thought most likely was the "Great Circle Passenger Tunnel." The Great Circle route would be bored, so it would not need to follow existing city streets or cause surface disruptions due to digging. There would actually be two passenger tunnels, each with one track. They would split from the existing NEC just west of the mouth of the B&P Tunnel, heading north from Fulton Junction. It would slowly arc back toward the southeast, emerging just south of the Baltimore Light Rail Storage and Maintenance Yard. From there on, the surface tracks would enter Penn Station and follow the NEC's current routing through East Baltimore.
An alternative includes using Presstman Street Alignment for which right-of-way was purchased by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1931 for a replacement route. However, the FRA report discounts this route because it would have many of the same drawbacks as the B&P Tunnel, including a low speed limit due to curves. Additionally, it would require cut-and-cover tunneling, something which would be extremely disruptive in Baltimore's dense urban neighborhoods.
The most expensive option would be a new alignment roughly following the Route 40 east-west corridor through the city. It would allow for an underground inter-city rail terminal closer to downtown. However, this alternative is likely to be prohibitively expensive.
MARC Investment Plan
Almost two years ago, in September 2007, the Maryland Mass Transit Administration released a plan for investment in the MARC Commuter Rail system. This plan called for pouring funds into the system to help keep service levels catch up to ridership increases. Unfortunately, the recession put those plans on hold. In fact, instead of increasing service and preparing capital projects, MTA has cut MARC service since the release of this report.
The MTA still intends to make MARC improvements, but it needs resources first. It hopes to find some of those resources with the stimulus. Of the seven projects mentioned above, most are in the investment plan.
The BWI improvements, including a fourth track from Grove to Wynans interlockings, are mentioned in the plan as being completed by 2015. MTA Hopes to have a new four-track bridge over the Gunpowder River by 2020. Sometime beyond 2020 it hopes to have four tracks spanning the Bush and Susquhanna Rivers. The current funding request will fund engineering for three-track bridges across each river. Another aspect of their long-range plan calls for the Chesapeake Connection sometime after 2020, for which engineering funds have been requested. Replacement of the B&P Tunnel and its subsequent rehabilitation for use should happen by 2020 according to MTA.
Significant expansion of MARC, VRE, and other passenger rail services in the region depend on major improvements to our rail infrastructure. Baltimore and Washington sit at a strategic point on our East Coast rail networks, and expansion of passenger service competes with valuable slots for freight movement. Without significant capital investment, we won't be able to continue to add more passenger trains.
The stimulus funding would present an excellent start. However, Maryland's MARC plan calls for $3.9 billion in capital costs alone by 2035 on all three lines. That would allow commuter trains to run to Newark, Delaware in the north, and Alexandria, Virginia in the south. It would also allow for weekend, mid-day, and reverse commute services on all lines. Under the plan, new stations would be constructed, parking would be added, and maintenance facilities would improve the efficiency of MARC.
The need for rail investment is clear to everyone. We can hope that the stimulus' emphasis on improving rail transportation is an indicator of where the transportation reauthorization is headed. Regardless, the Mid-Atlantic states are aware of the funds they need to spend. Unfortunately, the economy has siphoned many of those funds away.
Transit
Washington's rails, part 2: CSX's "National Gateway" for freight
In the last installment, I described the Washington and Baltimore rail networks and their limitations. CSX hopes to surmount some of those limitations with their "National Gateway" initiative, which would upgrade freight rail infrastructure to accommodate double-stack container cars.
Photo by the author.
In May 2008, CSX announced a new initiative to improve the efficiency of America's freight network. Their project, known as the "National Gateway" purports to decrease truck traffic on our crowded Interstates, create new jobs, and increase capacity for carrying freight between Mid-Atlantic Ports and the Midwest.
With an ever-increasing reliance on international shipping, standard shipping containers have become more commonplace. These containers can easily be placed on ships, trucks, and trains for transportation. Intermodal containers greatly improve the flexibility of our rail network and improve efficiency in the transportation system as a whole.
In 1984, the well car was introduced to American railroading. These cars allow for double-stacked shipping containers, increasing the amount of goods a train can haul. However on the east coast, double-stack intermodal trains are much rarer. The railroad infrastructure here is America's oldest, and tunnels and bridges are not high enough to permit double-stack trains to connect ports like Baltimore and Hampton Roads with markets in the Midwest.
A CN Double-Stack near Kamloops, BC.
The Heartland Corridor, like the National Gateway, will involve raising the roofs of tunnels Norfolk Southern's Heartland Corridor got a helping hand from state governments and the US Department of Transportation. Of the estimated $151 million cost of the main line between Norfolk and Chicago, US DOT paid $95 million in addition to Virginia's $9.75 million and Ohio's $800 thousand. Overall, the project's cost was $311 million, including projects in several places to build or improve intermodal terminals.
In order to keep competing, CSX is working on getting public funding for the National Gateway. This proposal will involve raising the clearance of 61 bridges and tunnels in six states and the District of Columbia. The National Gateway proposal also calls for six new or improved intermodal terminals along the way, including one near Baltimore.
To fund this public-private partnership, CSX is calling for $194 million (25%) from the federal government and $193 million (25%) from the states involved to add to their own commitment of $387 million (50%). CSX claims that the benefits will be manifold, including adding jobs through the construction and operation of the new terminals, a reduction in highway congestion and accidents, a savings of more than $500 million in highway maintenance costs, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
And commuters on other modes have much to gain as well. By eliminating track bottlenecks like the Virginia Avenue tunnel in Southeast DC, commuters on MARC's Camden and Brunswick Lines will experience less freight congestion.
The route for freight trains from the Mid-Atlantic to the Midwest passes through Washington. In order to allow for double-stack trains, a clearance of 21 feet is needed. In order to achieve that, CSX needs to conduct 13 clearance projects in the region. Of these, six are in Maryland, one is in Virginia, and six are in the District of Columbia.
Last Month, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments introduced a draft letter confirming their support of the National Gateway project to CSX. Because these projects fall within the jurisdiction of MWCOG, their support is vital, as is the support of Maryland and Virginia's governors, both of whom have already pledged their support.
Here are the Washington area projects in the National Gateway. Click on each link for an image of the project area: All photos by Matt Johnson
Left: CSX trains rumbling under the L'Enfant Promenade.
Right: 12th Street ramp and 10th Street from the front of a VRE train.
@ggwash
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
Greater Washington
District of Columbia
