Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CSSC Regional Rail Partners, September 18, 2012 Chesapeake Connector : Freight and Passenger Rail Benefits Study.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CSSC Regional Rail Partners, September 18, 2012 Chesapeake Connector : Freight and Passenger Rail Benefits Study."— Presentation transcript:

1 CSSC Regional Rail Partners, September 18, 2012 Chesapeake Connector : Freight and Passenger Rail Benefits Study

2  Project summary  Key questions  Review of project documents  Interviews with stakeholders  Development of cost estimates for project alternatives  Analysis of Cost & Benefits Page 2

3  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

4  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

5  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

6 Page 6 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.

7 Station2003 “Track A Feasibility Study” Results (H-1 model with old demographics)* H-1 Model (updated demographics) 2005-Developed Model (updated demographics) Perryville36210123 North East101143104 Elkton166138145 Newark165262251 Churchman’s Crossing231269159 Wilmington125145275 Total82411671057 Page 7 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff. Track A Extension Feasibility Study Phase II. MARC PENN LINE EXTENSION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION July 28, 2006 * - Figures are actually based on 2025 ridership estimates.

8 Page 8 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

9 Page 9 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

10 Page 10 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

11 Page 11 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

12 Page 12 Option A

13 Page 13 Option A at bridge over NEC

14 Page 14 Option B

15 Page 15 Cost Estimates Option A  Guideway & Track Elements:$167,257,175  Sitework & Special Conditions: $33,032,574  Systems:$24,828,636  ROW, Land & Existing Improvements:$7,950,000  Professional Services:$ 78,443,359  Unallocated Contingency$37,955,514  Total:$349,467,514 Option B  Guideway & Track Elements:$49,885,500  Sitework & Special Conditions: $29,582,574  Systems:$23,9891,136  ROW, Land & Existing Improvements:$5,460,000  Professional Services:$ 36,267,665  Unallocated Contingency$17,023,614  Total:$162,200,489

16 Page 16  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

17 Page 17

18 Page 18  Meeting with NS – Harrisburg Division Chief Spring 2012  Part of scheduled meetings for Chesapeake Connector Project

19 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 25

Download ppt "CSSC Regional Rail Partners, September 18, 2012 Chesapeake Connector : Freight and Passenger Rail Benefits Study."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google