CRITICAL CARGO

A Regional Freight Action Agenda

...for jobs, economic growth and quality of life in metropolitan Chicago

Prepared by: Business Leaders for Transportation April 2002

Written by: John McCarron formerly Metropolitan Planning Council and Jim LaBelle Chicago Metropolis 2020

With assistance from Karyn Romano, transportation director, Metropolitan Planning Council; Mary DeBacker, former transportation associate, Metropolitan Planning Council; and David Young, freelance transportation writer/historian.
Photo courtesy of TranSystems Corporation.

Business Leaders for Transportation Freight Transportation Working Group Participants

ABN AMRO Bank N.V. APL Limited Amtrak Andersen Belt Railway Company of Chicago Alfred Benesch & Company The John Buck Company The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company CSX Corp. Canadian National Railway Company/Illinois Central Railroad CenterPoint Properties Trust Chicago Area Transportation Study Chicago Metropolis 2020 Chicago Southland Chamber of Commerce Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce City of Chicago Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois R.R. Donnelley Logistics Foley & Lardner Grove Management Company Inc. Illinois Department of Transportation

Illinois Transportation Association A.T. Kearney Inc. Metra Metropolitan Planning Council Northwestern University Patrick Engineering Inc. Regional Economics Applications Laboratory/ University of Illinois Regional Transportation Authority Schiff, Hardin & Waite Transportation Communications International Union TranSystems Corp. Union League Club of Chicago Union Pacific Corp. United Parcel Service of America Inc. United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration United Transportation Union University of Illinois at Chicago Vlecides-Schroeder Associates Inc. World Business Chicago

Table of Contents

1 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 16

Executive Summary Background A system challenged by growth The intermodal revolution A joint-use corridor A region of grade crossings Recent developments Recommendations Case Study: Californias Alameda Corridor Appendices

18 20 22

1) Problem grade crossings in the Chicago region a) Illinois Commerce Commission FY 2002-2006 crossing improvement list b) American Association of Railroads list of crossings that interfere with rail efficiency in the region c) Chicago Area Transportation Study list of crossings with highest predicted annual accident rates 2) Illinois Department of Transportation list of Chicago area freight bottlenecks 3) Connector roadways serving five major intermodal yards

23

24 27

Endnotes

Executive Summary

ne of the Chicago metropolitan areas most important industries indeed, the activity most responsible for our regions historic rise as a global economic center is in need of renewal. Almost everywhere one looks, the movement of freight across the Chicago region is being stalled, sidetracked or otherwise delayed by an assortment of bottlenecks, most the result of overloaded or obsolete road and rail systems. Moving freight across the Chicago region by rail a passage made by nearly a third of the nations total rail shipments typically takes two days or more, with train speeds averaging between 6.8 and 12 m.p.h. Cross-regional truck speeds, now in the 10 to 15 m.p.h. range, have also been in decline, especially along the Interstate 80, 94 and 294 corridors, portions of which are loaded beyond capacity most weekdays.

lion of us who live and work in northeastern Illinois, whether the impact is measured in excess commuting time, worsened levels of air pollution, missed school classes and business appointments or delayed shipments to businesses. And yet, while the Chicago regions need for additional airport capacity has been debated extensively in public and governmental forums, little attention has been paid, outside shipping industry circles, to the problems of our freight network. It was this lack of awareness that prompted Business Leaders for Transportation, which represents more than 10,000 employers across the Chicago region, to convene a Freight Transportation Working Group of industry and other experts. The Working Groups research and informationsharing over 12 months provided the basis of this report. With the input of these experts, Business Leaders for Transportation makes three near-term recommendations, which are summarized here and explained more fully in the text of the report.

Almost everywhere one looks, the movement of freight across the Chicago region is being stalled.

But it is not just freight shipments that are being delayed by mile-long back-ups of tractor-trailers at tollbooths and interchanges, or by trains blocking too many of the regions 1,953 at-grade crossings. This is everybodys headache. Freight system hang-ups, for instance, contribute to unreasonably Gridlock at a Glance long automobile commuting times in the region, which have been cited Number of rail freight cars moving daily as the third worst in the nation.1 through the region At stake, then, is not just the future Average train speed across region of an $8 billion regional shipping Average truck speed across region industry that employs 117,000 Number of at-grade railroad crossings Chicagoans with an annual payroll Number of Intermodal yards of $3.2 billion. Freight problems Number of daily truck trips between railyards affect the daily lives of all eight milRanking among nations most congested metropolitan areas

37,500 6.8-12 mph 10-15 mph 1,953 26 3,500 third worst

Recommendation 1: Organize public/ private support for a package of priority capital improvements to the regions freight network that will expand capacity, lessen gridlock and support job expansion:

B) Replace with grade separations the 40

worst at-grade crossings in the Chicago region, as measured by train and traffic delays and/or serious accidents. A rail industry planning group has
identified crossings that have an especially severe impact on rail efficiency in the region and asks that at least 50 of them be grade-separated or simply closed (see appendix 1b). The City of Chicago, Chicago Area Transportation Study and the Illinois Commerce Commission also maintain lists of inadequate crossings, including several that are as dangerous as they are delay-causing. C) Upgrade the regions 55 miles of cru-

A) Establish a joint-use freight corridor,

after investigating the now-underutilized southern arc of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern (EJ&E) Railway and other corridors prioritized by the industry. This strategy is not unlike the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles (see p.16). Already being studied by
Metra for its potential as an outer suburban connector of commuter lines, the southern arc of the EJ&Es right-of-way could be upgraded for both freight and commuter uses. Any joint-use corridor would entail grade separations, bridge widenings, double- or triple-tracking and improved connections with the six mainline freight railroads they cross. These corridors would enable transcontinental freight trains to move more efficiently through the city and close-in suburbs, reducing pollution and traffic gridlock while improving connectivity among the regions intermodal freight yards. Doing so has the potential to reduce the 3,500 truck trips made each day simply to haul shipping containers from one rail yard to another.

cial intermodal connector highways,

which are roads used to haul containers between the regions 26 intermodal rail yards. Work should begin as soon as possible on the 17 miles recently studied by the Federal Highway Administration as in need of $65 million worth of widening, repaving, drainage and signalization. A study should be conducted on the remaining 38 miles of connector routes to determine needed upgrades and improvements.

Photo courtesy of TranSystems Corporation.

Recommendation 2: Secure $20 million in federal funding support over the next two years to cover the public portion of planning for the priorities listed above. As the nations
most critical freight transportation connection point, northeastern Illinois merits significant federal assistance for freight improvements in the upcoming fiscal year budget and TEA-3 reauthorization in 2003. Limited state matching funds also will be needed to build on the $10 million set-aside for freight improvements in the Illinois FIRST program. So will private industry investments, perhaps made via container or rolling stock surcharges like those used in California on the Alameda Corridor.

Recommendation 3: Establish, by state legislative action, a regional, public/private freight entity to plan, coordinate and help finance improvements to the metropolitan freight transportation system. One option is
to create a fourth, freight-only service board under the existing Regional Transportation Authority. Another option is to create a separate metropolitan authority, such as that governing McCormick Place operations. The new entity would apply for, accept and dispense federal capital grants; issue tax-exempt revenue bonds on behalf of participating railroads; and, if needed, acquire and manage land for the purposes of freight-related economic development.

The freight industry generates $8 billion in gross value of economic activity and a $3.2 billion annual payroll.
* projected Source: Regional Economics Applications Laboratory (REAL), 2001

Background

T
When Chicago has a delivery problem, so does the rest of America.

he efficient movement of freight has been the engine of northeastern Illinois economy for more than two centuries, ever since French voyageurs discovered the portage here between the Great Lakes and Mississippi waterways. It was the building of railroads a century later, however, that made Chicago the nations undisputed freight transportation hub. That status was further solidified by the post-WWII meeting here of seven interstate highways and by the development of the worlds busiest airport. Chicagoans are well aware of the capacity problems and political issues swirling around the regions airports, both existing and planned. And in fact, much rides on the outcome of the OHare Expansion/Third Airport controversy in terms of the economic prospects of the region.

verging on the metropolitan area. When Chicago has a delivery problem, so does the rest of America. With a third of the nations rail and overland truck cargo moving through the region, delays here can mean no just-in-time delivery of auto parts to Detroit, no fresh California fruit on eastern tables in the wintertime, no Asian-made consumer electronics on U.S. shelves in time for holiday shopping. At risk is not just a regional freight-moving sector that generates more than $8 billion in annual economic activity and $3.2 billion in pay for 117,000 employees.2 At risk, ultimately, is the historic advantage of the Chicago region as the nations preeminent place to efficiently make and ship goods of all kinds. Were Chicago to become known as an irreparable national bottleneck, other shipping corridors, such as the Interstate 70 Kansas City-Indianapolis-Columbus alignment, or the Interstate 40 corridor from L.A. to Knoxville, surely would benefit at our expense.

But just as crucial to those prospects is the Chicago regions ability or more worrisome, its inability to efficiently handle the steadily building volume of non-passenger freight traffic con-

Chicago Region Surface Transportation Employment by Sector, 1970-2020

Sector/Date Railroad Local (public transit, etc.) Truck Water Transportation Total 1970 46,550 13,640 54,400 2,950 117,540 2000 34,700 20,470 80,390 2,260 137,820 2020* 31,900 24,800 125,590 2,100 184,390

* projected Source: Regional Economics Applications Laboratory (REAL), 2001

Truck Freight Flows, All Commodities

All truck types, highway freight density represented in tons

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Rail Freight Flows, All Commodities

Rail freight density represented in tons

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation

How freight moves in Chicagoland (by volume)

Water 2.3%

A system challenged by growth

Air 0.1%

T
Our road and rail networks lack the bandwidth and connectivity required to meet the increasingly competitive, just-in-time logistical demands of 21st Century commerce.

he problem, in a nutshell, is this: the Chicago regions surface transportation network its unrivaled-but-aging confluence of transcontinental rail lines, regional switching lines and mile upon mile of major truck routes is slowing to a relative crawl. Our road and rail networks lack the bandwidth and connectivity required to meet the increasingly competitive, just-in-time logistical demands of 21st Century commerce. No longer is it acceptable for a rail container that took two days rolling from Seattle to Bensenville to take another two days creeping from Bensenville to South Bend. Yet that is a typical dwell time for a shipping container that must change trains here, in what railroaders call the Chicago Terminal District.3 This District, also referred to as the Chicago Gateway, is believed to be one of the most complex railroad networks in the world. It contains 893 miles of live track, 125 interlockings and 57 separate yards, 26 of them intermodal. Through

Rail 59.3%

Highway 38.3%

Source: Chicago Area Transportation Study, 1997

this maze each day pass 700 Metra and Amtrak passenger trains and more than 500 freight trains, the latter pulling some 37,500 freight cars loaded with 2.5 million tons of cargo. Roughly a third of the regions freight trains originate here, a third terminate here and a final third simply pass through.4 Over the next 20 years, according to industry forecasts, these volumes will increase by roughly 80 percent.5 In other words, a regional freight infrastructure straining to accommodate present volumes will be pushed to the breaking point with daily volumes of 2,390 trains pulling 67,000 cars and 4.3 million tons of cargo. Metra is also studying several rail lines for new or increased commuter service. This is a recipe for gridlock ... unless plans are laid now to enlarge and streamline the systems carrying capacity. Beside the dire implications freight gridlock would have on the regions economy, our failure to keep pace with rising volumes already is having here-and-now consequences for quality-of-life for millions of Chicago area residents. Thats because the systems many inefficiencies from trains blocking grade crossings as they wait for space in cramped yards to the thousands of extra truck trips made necessary each day by the lack of efficient rail-to-rail connections among competing railroads are a significant factor behind worsening road congestion, ever-longer commuting times and deterioration of air quality. In one way or another, the Chicago regions freight problem is everybodys problem.

The intermodal revolution

lobalization of trade, coupled with the wide dispersal of producers and consumers made possible by the interstate highway system, has led to a boom in containerized intermodal shipping, especially of the train-to-truck variety. Nationally, intermodal volumes grew by more than seven percent a year during the 1990s, roughly doubling. Northeastern Illinois, an early intermodal load center, averaged slightly smaller year-to-year gains of less than six percent. Nevertheless, more than half of all U.S. container traffic now passes through the Chicago area, so much that our region has emerged as the worlds third busiest intermodal hub, surpassed only by the great Asian seaports of Hong Kong and Singapore.6 The rise of intermodal freight has proven a mixed blessing, however. The six transcontinental railroad systems that converge on Chicago four from the West and two from the East are not adequately cross-connected within the Chicago Terminal District. This necessitates the transfer by truck of some 3,500 containers a day between rail yards, according to estimates developed by the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS). When empty container return runs and intra-

regional collection and distribution trips are counted, CATS estimates the area experiences 17,810 truck trips a day just as a result of intermodal operations.7 With intermodal traffic forecasted to expand by 2.5 times by 2020, the resulting explosion of short-haul trucking poses both a problem and an opportunity for the region. The problem is obvious, in that the regions interstates and truck route arterials already are loaded to capacity during much of the day, with a half million daily truck trips already accounting for 28 percent of the load on interstates, 16 percent on other marked routes. The opportunity, though less obvious, is compelling: develop ways to move containers more efficiently from train to train. This can be achieved by improving critical highway segments, called intermodal connectors; and by reducing socalled crosstown truck trips, either by connecting rail lines within multi-owner yards or by connecting existing yards via circumferential railroad rights-of-way.

A joint-use corridor 8
ithin the Chicago Terminal District this inter-line transfer function has been the historic work of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad and the Belt Railway of Chicago. Analysis of bottlenecks on these lines is now underway to determine if key grade crossing separations can produce higher speed, joint-use corridors to reduce congestion. Another opportunity is the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway (EJ&E), a still-active but under-used right-of-way that circles the region roughly 35 miles from downtown Chicago, from Waukegan to Joliet to Gary, Ind. EJ&E management has been open to discussions about greater use of its right-of-way, over which some 20 trains a day now shuttle coal to area power plants and the ingredients of steel to the railroads owner, the USX steel complex in Gary. Indeed, Metra has completed a preliminary study of the EJ&Es suitability as a north-south connector of the agencys Chicago-bound commuter lines.8 A second study is underway to gauge pub-

lic demand for a north-south, or cross-regional, service that would not require commuters to travel or transfer downtown. One challenge is that any selected corridor will have rail-to-rail crossings that create conflicts between freight and commuter and inter-city passenger service. The resulting gridlock makes a strong case for a coordinated capital plan. Freight service may not, at first, seem compatible with commuter use. But the challenges of combined operations have been met and mastered on several existing Metra lines that have modern infrastructure. And the potential efficiencies both for more efficient freight-handling and reduction of traffic delays of adding strategically located grade separations, track-over-track flyovers, and, where necessary, triple tracking, cannot be ignored in light of projected growth in the transit and freight sectors.

Photo by David Young.

Railroad Key
AMTK BNSF BRC CP CSS CSX EJ&E CN/IC IAIS IHB Metra NS UP WC Amtrak Burlington Northern Santa Fe Belt Railway Company of Chicago Canadian Pacific Chicago Shore, S.B. CSX Transportation Elgin Joliet & Eastern Canadian National/Illinois Central Iowa Interstate Indiana Harbor Belt Northeastern Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation Norfolk Southern Union Pacific Wisconsin Central

Map courtesy of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

A region of grade crossings

10

he overlay of 50 years worth of post-war real estate development on the regions centuryold railroad network has proven a veritable recipe for rail and highway gridlock. At last count there were 1,953 public, at-grade crossings in the region, a majority of them in need of repair or reconstruction.9 A lack of grade separations is a major cause of conflict between railroads and communities. Futhermore, given the extensive commuter rail service in the region, peak commuter train times coincide with peak car commute times, causing road congestion even on free flowing rail corridors. The impact on car travel is difficult to measure, but no motorist who has waited a half hour for a slow-moving freight train to clear a crossing would deny the impact is significant ... and frustrating. In the south and southwest quadrants of the city and suburbs, home of the most crossings and the most rail yards, long and frequent traffic back-ups have prompted widespread public discontent and calls for action on the part of elected officials.

State Senator Patrick OMalley (R-Palos Park) introduced legislation in 1999 and 2001 that would subject railroad managers to arrest and hefty fines if found guilty, a second time, of the misdemeanor offense of chronic obstruction of grade crossings. U.S. Representative William Lipinski (D-Chicago), meanwhile, has ordered a federal/state examination of the grade crossing snarl and what might be done to alleviate bothersome and costly traffic delays. Relief will carry a considerable price. Just one full road-rail grade separation project (overpasses, underpasses, etc.) can cost anywhere from $5 million to $40 million depending on the size of the roads and tracks involved, and on local conditions. A more modest rebuilding, such as the smoothing and re-signalization of a crossing, can cost from $1 million to $5 million. A regional survey of grade crossing inadequacies is being conducted by the state, but dozens of seriously deficient crossings already have been identified and are awaiting funding just within the City of Chicago (see lists of problem crossings at Appendix 1). A similar situation exists along the regions 55 miles of federally designated intermodal connector roads. A recently released study conducted by the engineering firm of Edwards and Kelcey for the Federal Highway Administration focused on just 17 miles of these arterials running between five intermodal yards. The study found these thoroughfares, most of them local or county roads, are in need of improvements and repairs worth $65 million, $58 million of which was identified as a necessary public sector expense.10

Elmhurst Crossing.

Recent developments

ajor railroads have invested $750 million over the past three years on their own Chicago District improvements. They have also set aside competitive differences to establish, in early 2000, the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office, or CTCO. Based in the Metra dispatching center near Union Station, and with the help of electronic status boards and shared Web sites, CTCO allows the major lines to share train information so as to better balance the ebb and flow of traffic across the system. As a result, the costly need to re-crew delayed trains has been greatly reduced, as has the average freight car dwell time within the district, and freight interference with Metra commuter operations.11 The CTCO is the most advanced freight industry collaboration to be found anywhere in the United States. The CTCOs ongoing work and the plan by the railroads chief operating officers has led to the development of a simulation of traffic flows through Chicago, the first map and model of actual traffic patterns across several hundred miles of track in Chicago. In addition, the simulation (a snapshot of traffic for four days in November 1999) provides the basis for structural improvements to the local infrastructure. The result is analogous to an air traffic controllers design of flights into and out of OHare International Airport. Unfortunately, few similar joint efforts have been undertaken for capital improvements, meaning that most Class 1 railroads are now independently planning and developing their own additional space and facilities so as to accommodate the steadily rising load. In addition to routine track and signalization upgrades, several carriers have expanded their intermodal facilities. In 1999, CSX opened a large intermodal yard at 59th Street on Chicagos South Side. CenterPoint Properties is developing a state-of-the-art, 620-acre intermodal facility for BNSF as part of the Joliet Arsenal redevelopment. CenterPoint Properties will also manage the construction of a 1,230-acre intermodal facility for Union Pacific, 60 miles west of Chicago in Rochelle, Ill. Other space-limited railroads continue to weigh intermodal expansion opportunities. Given the operational interrelationships involved, a higher level of coordinated capital planning would be useful, as would a neutral governmental forum around which such planning could take place. Whats most needed, at this crucial stage in the evolution of the regions freight infrastructure, however, is leadership from the government sector to identify, finance and oversee construction of priority improvements that would yield substantial public benefits. Major public investment will be needed if the Chicago region is to maximize the positive economic benefit of the freight shipping boom, while at the same time minimizing the negative impacts on traffic and quality-of-life.

11

Whats most needed at this crucial stage in the evolution of the regions freight infrastructure ... is leadership from the government sector to identify, finance and oversee construction of priority improvements that would yield substantial public benefits.

Recommendations

at minimum, public funding for further study of this and other possible joint-use corridors. Capital improvements to any joint-use corridor would include grade separations (road-under-rail viaducts and rail-over-rail flyovers), bridge widening, double and in some places triple tracking, along with improved connections with the six main freight lines they cross. Grade separations would especially benefit the long-suffering motorists of the south and southwest city and suburban areas now riddled with at-grade crossings and the traffic snarls they cause. A new corridor would reduce some of the 3,500 truck trips made each day simply to hand shipping containers from one rail yard to another, and become a magnet for shipping and shipping-critical employers. B) Replace with grade separations the 40 worst at-grade crossings in the Chicago region, as measured by train and traffic delays and/or serious accidents. Chronically blocked and/or deteriorated at-grade crossings are the most frustrating and, all too often, lethal interface between the general public and the freight rail industry. Illinois, with its 8,920 crossings, experienced 190 collisions and 27 fatalities in 2000 due to car/train collisions. In recent years, moreover, the Chicago region has witnessed multiple-death calamities involving a school bus struck by a commuter train and an Amtrak inter-city plowing into a steel-hauling semi-trailer. For the vast majority of the regions motorists, however, the 1,953 at-grade crossings in northeastern Illinois are experienced mainly as a ubiquitous, daily, delay-causing annoyance. From a railroad perspective the view is not much better, in that inadequate crossings impose reductions in train speeds, service delays from broken gates or other accidents, incessant maintenance problems and community relations headaches.

he Freight Transportation Working Group, a gathering of freight industry executives, government officials and academics, was convened early in 2000 by the Metropolitan Planning Council under the auspices of Business Leaders for Transportation. Following a February 1, 2000 conference at which the major issues were laid out, the Working Group conducted a series of fact-finding meetings to discuss specific problems and prospective solutions in detail.12 Based on input from the Working Group, the following are three near-term recommendations put forward by Business Leaders for Transportation:

12

Recommendation 1: Organize public/private support for a package of priority capital improvements to the regions freight network that will expand capacity, lessen gridlock and support job expansion: A) Establish a joint-use freight corridor, after investigating the now underutilized southern arc of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern (EJ&E) Railway and other corridors prioritized by the industry. Already, the EJ&E is being studied by Metra for its potential to be an outer-suburban connector of that agencys radial commuter lines. But the Js 100-foot-wide right-of-way also could serve as a southern bypass for trains not bound for Chicago, thereby freeing up track and yard capacity for the two-thirds of all rail traffic that does need to be switched through the Chicago Terminal District. The potential exists, also, for the EJ&E to serve as a belt-style connector between main lines and their intermodal yards, a service that would reduce the number of truck trips needed to haul containers from yard to yard. The potential benefit in reduced traffic and exhaust emissions merit,

EJ&E-U.P. Crossing. Photo by David Young.

Where to begin? The Chicago Planning Group of the American Association of Railroads recently developed a list of crossings that have an especially severe impact on rail efficiency in the region (see Appendix 1b). The listing recommends that more than 50 of these crossings generally those crossing busy arterial streets be eliminated with grade separations (e.g.: viaducts). Other lists of problem crossings have been developed by: the Illinois Commerce Commission (which has an inadequately funded program to upgrade a small number of crossings each year); the Illinois Department of Transportation; the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS); and the City of Chicago (see Appendices). Plainly missing is a coherent, regional action plan to identify the worst crossings using both safety and efficiency criteria and a program to systematically reconstruct or eliminate the worst offenders. Such an effort, to identify and remedy the 40 worst crossings, should be undertaken as soon as possible. C) Upgrade the regions 55 miles of crucial intermodal connector highways starting with the 17 miles of roads that have been studied by the Federal Highway Administration as in need of $65 million worth of widening, repaving, drainage and signalization. Study the remaining 38 miles of connector routes to determine needed upgrades and improvements. These connectors are designated truck routes used to link intermodal rail yards or port facilities, many of which are under local jurisdiction, to the National Highway System. Other recommendations in this report are aimed at reducing the volume of so-called crosstown truck trips between the regions 26 intermodal yards. Bullish projected growth of overall intermodal volume (a 2.5-fold increase by 2020) means, however, that the number of intermodal truck trips on area roads, now estimated at 17,810 per day, will steadily increase no matter what improvements are made to expand

Source: Chicago Area Transportation Study, 1998.

13
train-to-train transfer of containers. In other words, failure to upgrade the connectors will mean worsening levels of congestion, not just for freight haulers, but for all area motorists. A July 2001 Federal Highway Administration study, managed by the Chicago Department of Transportation and conducted by the engineering firm of Edwards and Kelcey (see endnote 10) examined a sampling of 17 of the regions 55 miles of designated intermodal connectors, a subset that serves six of the regions 26 intermodal yards. The study found that, in general, the roadways have insufficient width, distressed pavement conditions, and inadequate drainage and illumination levels. Edwards and Kelcey estimated the cost of bringing these 17 miles up to federal standards at $65 million (using 1996 construction prices) split between the public sector ($58.2 million) and the affected railroads ($6.7 million). The remaining 38 miles of designated intermodal connectors have yet to be studied to determine what improvements are needed to bring them up to industry standards.

Failure to upgrade the connectors will mean worsening levels of congestion not just for freight haulers, but for all area motorists.

way system, an inland waterway system and an elaborate national traffic control system for commercial aviation. Lately, however, there has been a growing recognition that freight system failures have widespread public consequences, from the frustrations of a blocked local grade crossing to the choking of large sections of the national economy. In recognition, Congress has made freight rail projects eligible for loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Improvement Act (TIFIA). More importantly, it included freight projects among the non-traditional grantees of the 1991 (ISTEA) and subsequent (TEA-21) surface transportation funding acts.

14

Recommendation 2: Secure $20 million in federal funding support over the next two years to cover the public portion of planning the above freight investments.
As the nations most critical freight transportation connecting point, northeastern Illinois surely merits carefully targeted freight infrastructure assistance commensurate with its role in national, and global, commerce. This is especially true for rail infrastructure, the funding of which historically has been relegated to the private sector. Meanwhile, the federal government has spent hundreds of billions creating a 49,000-mile interstate high-

State matching funds also will be needed to build on the $10 million set aside for freight improvements in the Illinois FIRST program. Local funds will be needed, too, especially in the case of local grade crossing upgrades, where a partial county or municipal match is normally a requirement. Given the magnitude of the regions freight investment needs, however, it is up to the federal government to lead the way. Members of the Illinois Congressional delegation have expressed interest in freight investments. With the additional support of Business Leaders for Transportation, and of leaders both within the freight industry and the many industries dependant on freight, it is hoped that the above improvements will find a place in the upcoming reauthorization of the surface transportation funding act (TEA-3).

Recommendation 3: Establish, by state legislative action, a regional, public/private freight entity to plan, coordinate and help finance improvements to the regions freight transportation system. Besides acting as the main forum for a public/private planning effort, the new regional freight entity would be capable of applying for, accepting and dispensing federal capital grants; of issuing taxexempt revenue bonds on behalf of participating railroads; and of acquiring and managing land for the purposes of freight-related economic development. One governance option is to create a fourth, freight-only service board under the existing Regional Transportation Authority. Another option is to create a separate authority, modeled after the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority in California or the Westside Intermodal Transportation Corporation in Kansas City, Mo. Regardless of where it is housed, the regional freight entity would be empowered to plan, coordinate and help finance a series of public/private improvements to the regions freight infrastructure, beginning with those listed above. Comprehensive planning is key, beginning with a strategic, multi-modal freight transportation improvement plan. A single regional plan is needed to guide and prioritize public investment in freight infrastructure. At minimum, such a plan would prioritize needed improvements, such as replacement of delay-ridden and/or dangerous grade crossings with viaducts or flyovers. On a more ambitious scale, just such a multi-jurisdictional plan led to creation of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority and that agencys major capital undertakings in southern California (see p. 16). Would not a south subur-

ban freight corridor be a logical undertaking for a northeastern Illinois freight leadership team? The railroads, along with the trucking and logistics industries not government functionaries must be the prime architects of any truly effective regional master plan for freight. This means private sector players will need to look beyond competitive advantage and recognize the mutual benefit of coordinated private and public investments. Already, the railroads have proven the efficacy of operational cooperation with the successful launch of the joint Chicago Transportation Coordination Office. By taking a cue from the pan-industry efforts of the Association of American Railroads, our regions railroads can move beyond traffic management, and jointly address what ultimately are the more vexing issues of inadequate capacity and capital funding.

A single regional plan is needed to guide and prioritize public investment in freight infrastructure.

15

Freight is not just a growing industry in northeastern Illinois. It is an industry that provides services essential to the operation of virtually every other industry. Whether our state and region prepares for, and exploits, this growth or ignores it only to succumb to traffic congestion and, ultimately, a loss of both jobs and livability is a matter of regional leadership. Business Leaders for Transportation is prepared to lead. Please join us. For more information, visit [Link] or contact Karyn Romano, transportation director, Metropolitan Planning Council, at kromano@[Link] or 312.863.6005.

Californias Alameda Corridor

he post-war boom in intermodal shipping has had negative effects on traffic congestion and quality of life across the southern Los Angeles basin ... just as it has across much of the Chicago region. Thats why northeastern Illinoisans should pay close attention to what southern Californians are doing about it. The centerpiece of their effort is the Alameda Corridor a $2.4 billion public/private project that will speed intermodal freight from the massive Los Angeles/Long Beach seaport to the main lines of the transcontinental railways east of downtown L.A. For decades, that 20-mile rail trip consisted of a halting, snails pace grind along one of four atgrade rights-of-way that paralleled truck-choked Alameda Street. The pace was no faster for cars and trucks using some 220 east-west streets that crossed those tracks. When intermodal trains began running almost non-stop, a kind of subregional gridlock set in that was both an annoyance to motorists and an economic poison to south L.A. and south suburbs like Compton and Lynwood. A blame game dragged on for the better part of two decades among railroads, business groups, local politicians and community activists. But, in 1990, multi-sided negotiations led to formation of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA), a joint-powers agency whose sevenmember governing board includes delegates from L.A. and Long Beach, their respective city coun-

cils and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. ACTAs plan: consolidate the rails onto a single, double-tracked, gradeseparated right-of-way; widen Alameda Street; and span the corridor at strategic intervals with bridges carrying east-west arterials. The whole project, including a 10-mile middle section in which the tracks run inside a 33-foot-deep, concrete-sided trench, opened in April 2002. ACTAs fiscal plan, which took six years to negotiate, may be more impressive than the physical. Key was the early commitment by the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe (now BNSF) to pay user fees ($15 per loaded 20-foot container, $30 per 40-foot and $8 per empty) sufficient to retire, over 35 years, $1.2 billion in construction bonds. The railroads commitment also secured a $400 million federal loan whose structure served as a model for design of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). The layered financing also included $394 million in grants from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, $347 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and $154 million from other federal and state sources. The payoff? For starters, there will be a three- to four-fold increase in train speeds and a like reduction of vehicular travel times across the entire corridor. Ultimately, however, the project was almost defensive in nature. How else could Los Angeles have accommodated the doubling of intermodal freight volumes predicted over the next 20 years?

16

Southern California now has a governmental and fiscal model in place to maximize freight industry growth.

The Alameda Corridor

17

Images courtesy of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority.

Indeed, California officials already are talking about the need for more grade-separated corridors one running south from the seaports through Orange County, another east from downtown through the San Bernardino Valley. Thats ambitious. But, southern California now has a governmental and fiscal model in place to maximize freight industry growth and the widespread economic benefit of that growth while

minimizing the traffic and environmental side effects. Remember that the Chicago region handles more than twice the intermodal volume of southern California and volumes here are expected to more than double by 2020. What is our plan to cope with, much less exploit, that growth?

 18

Appendix 1a

 19

 20

Appendix 1b

 21

 22

Appendix 1c

Appendix 2

23

 24

Connector Roadways Serving Five Major Intermodal Yards: The Chicago Area Transportation Study
A: BNSF Corwith Yard Kedzie Avenue from 47th Street to Interstate 55: 47th Street from Pulaski Road to Western Avenue: Pulaski Road from 47th Street to Interstate 55: 41st Street from Hamlin Avenue to Pulaski Road: 47th Street from Western Avenue to Interstates 90 and 94: Total: B: CSXI Bedford Park Yard 71st Street from yard to IL-43: Frontage Road from southbound Harlem Avenue exit, under Harlem Avenue, to yard: Sayre Road from yard to 73rd Street: Narragansett Avenue from yard to 73rd Street: Total: C: CN Gateway Yard, IC Moyers Yard Center Street from yard to 167th Street: 167th Street from Center Street to IL-1: West Avenue from yard to 159th Street: West Avenue from yard to 157th Street: 157th Street from West Avenue to Park Avenue: Park Avenue from 157th Street to 159th Street: Total: D: Lake Calumet Cluster Stony Island Avenue from yard (112nd Street) to 103rd Street: 122nd Street from Stony Island Avenue to Torrence Avenue: Stony Island Avenue from yard to 130th Street: Total:
Source: Edwards and Kelcey, 2001

1.53 miles 2.01 miles 1.09 miles 0.24 miles 2.80 miles 7.76 miles 0.30 miles

25
0.48 miles 2.74 miles 0.19 miles 3.71 miles 0.28 miles 0.51 miles 0.07 miles 0.16 miles 0.08 miles 0.26 miles 2.08 miles 3.22 miles 0.84 miles 0.13 miles 4.19 miles

Photo courtesy of TranSystems Corporation.

Endnotes
1. Texas Transportation Institute, 2001 Urban Mobility Report, 2001. Available at [Link] 2. Hewings, Geoffrey, Economic Impact of the Transportation Sector on the Chicago Economy, 1970-2021, for the Regional Economics Applications Laboratory (REAL), 2001. REAL is a joint venture of the University of Illinois and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. 3. Judge, Tom, Fluid at Last, Railway Age, June 2001. The author outlines the dwell time problem and describes the work of the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office (CTCO), a joint effort by 12 railroads, to speed traffic through the region. 4. Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS), Statistical Digest of Northeastern Illinois Intermodal Freight Activity, Destination 2020: 2020 Regional Transportation Plan, August 1998. 5. Stiehl, Mike and F. Gerald Rawling, Intermodal Volumes: Tracking Trends & Anticipating Impacts in Northeastern Illinois, Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) Working Paper 01-04, 2001. 6. DeVries, Jon B., Chicagos Intermodal Transportation Connections and Challenges, a presentation by Andersen Consulting to the 2001 Peoples Energy Economic Development Symposium, March 2001. 7. Ibid. 8. Metra, Outer Circumferential Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, conducted for the commuter rail agency by T-Y-Lin International-Bascor in association with DLK Architecture Inc, 1999. 9. Laffey, Steve, Grade Crossings of Northeastern Illinois, Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) Working Paper 99-04, 1999. 10. Edwards and Kelcey, Intermodal Connectors Assessment and Investment Study for the City of Chicago, Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Federal Highway Administration (FHA), 2001. 11. Chicago Planning Group of the American Association of Railroads, Congressional Briefing on Railroad Industry Initiatives and Partnership with City of Chicago, May 18, 2001 12. Business Leaders for Transportation, Moving Goods from Here to There: Improving Metropolitan Chicagos Freight Transportation Network, Metropolitan Planning Council conference summary, 2000. Also, background papers covering four key meetings of the Freight Transportation Working Group are available at [Link].

27