The Alameda Corridor opened to much fanfare on April 15, 2002. The Alameda Corridor Transportaion Authority which began life in 1989. Had and completed most of its grand ambitions to create a high capacity mostly grade seperated line from San Pedro Bay to connecting BNSF and UP lines at Redondo Jct. The RoW was built in mind with the capcity to expand to quad track if need be, and any future electrfifcation that might occur. In 2006 train count stood at 60/day.
Fast forward to 2021 train count now stands at 28/day.. A few things have worked against the Alameda Corridor and derailed plans to make it the premier route for freight from San Pedro Bay.
1) the economic recession that began in 2007 severly impacted imports through the port of LA, and Long Beach causing rapid decline in train movements.
2) Strikes over the last decade that hampered capacity at the Ports of LA, and LB drove up cost and diverted imports elsewhere on the continent.
3) I'm not against PSR. However the PSR operating model which aggregates as much traffic as possible into a unit of production a.k.a. a train. Has resulted in fewer trains on the corridor.
4) Final point. This is the core reason traffic has not materialized as predicted on the Alameda Corridor. The change in how imports are handled which no one had the foresight to see this.
Traditionally ISO boxes (containers) would travel further inland to DC's. with a customers freight. Until shippers like Maersk, MSC, etc. wanted to reduce empty container repositioning moves. Asia creates many more loaded ISO box moves than Europe and the Americas which tend to have a surplus of empty ISO boxes. This imbalance in ISO boxes drives up cost as those who need them to load freight are delayed which inturn can harm bookings and schedules raising cost even further for all parties alike.
Fast forward a bit.. It wasn't too much longer that cheap agricultural land in the Inland Empire began to go on the market providing an impetus for importers to build out the IE into the largest DC/Warehousing region in North America. Due to it's proximity from the Ports of LA, and LB. Most traffic now diverts onto the; I-710, I-10, I-105, and CA91 heading to the IE for transloading into 53' domestic boxes.
This caused three things to happen.
1) The Alameda Corridor would begain to lose TEU's to trucks.
2) The ACTA revenue fell off due to reduced TEU's.
3) Congestion rose at both ports as well as; local roads, freeways, etc.
Such a short move is a high cost for a Class 1 to handle. Which negates any margins that could be achieved from such a service. So the C1's (BNSF and UP) will not operate such service. The AC works as a toll system collecting revenue based on the amount of TEU's carried through the corridor. Though with a publicly financed project such as this the bonds will become difficult to recover if the traffic doesn't mature.
Yet we may have something that works... The Pacific Harbor Line which operates the terminal trackage for both port LA, and LB has access to the AC yet only to the old Cargill site in Lynwood. I say give PHL rights across the entire AC to Redondo Jct. and beyond. PHL can run shuttles from the ports to handoff with UP at East Los Angeles and BNSF at Hobart. Maybe even allow PHL rights all the way to the IE for these shuttles? The PHL's lower cost of operation could definitely handle such shuttle moves from the ports. The only requirement would be too equip PHL units with PTC, and I would also ask the FRA for waiver to operate these trains with a single operator.
Going forward with UP opening up a Colton IM ramp along with BNSF palnning a new ramp in Colton as well. I believe now would be the time for the; C1's, ACTA, the ports of LA, and LB, and PHL along with Caltrans to develop a plan. It will require some public monies. Yet if ACTA ever plans to collect funding to pay off state and local bonds I say this is the plan that should move forward.
What say you?
The character of tranportation with railroads is continuously evolving and has been since the first six barrels of flour were transported by the B&O from Ellicotts Mills to Baltimore.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
SD60MAC9500 It will require some public monies. Yet if ACTA ever plans to collect funding to pay off state and local bonds I say this is the plan that should move forward. What say you?
So I guess you are saying the only way to recover the public monies already sunk into the project, is to spend more public money? Sure! What could go wrong?
How about we just pave over the rails and create a "high occupancy vehicle" expressway?
Spending taxpayer money to make foreign manufacturing more profitable, has just NEVER seemed like a smart idea to me. Spending even more to correct what we got wrong the first time, fails to excite me.
Especially with autonomous trucks and trains looming on the horizon, threatening to diminish even further any prospect of the "good paying logistics job opportunities" that were supposed to be part of the bargain.
Maybe we could lease the Alameda corridor to the autonomous truck people, and save them the "hardship" of having to deal with surface traffic?
Keeping 28 trains a day off of the surface problems instead of 60 is far from a failure.
Along the Atlantic ports in the southern US they have built inland "ports" a similar distance from the seaports as LA-IE, and I understand the railroads are participating. I wonder why the same thing can't work in LA LA Land.
MidlandMike I wonder why the same thing can't work in LA LA Land.
The Inland Port idea has been kicked around out west. https://rcg1.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Final-Nevada-Inland-Port-Report2.pdf
Maybe shippers are tired of the dockworker strikes and are using other ports or the Panama Canal more.
If the Port of LA has let its costs climb out of line, as the OP claims they have, that is the Port's problem, not the railroads.
The only way declining traffic on the corridor becomes a railroad problem is if the railroads have a minimum volume committment and traffic is approaching it. Paying for air is bad. Does the OP know what the contract says? I do not. I am certain the carriers gave that issue a lot of thought.
Steamship companies are marketing east coast traffic to east coast ports. To the extent they succed, transcontinental containers, a major market the Corridor was built to serve, will decline. Stuff happens in a competitive market.
Running shuttle trains to the IE makes sense only if the rate is high enough. There may be an environmental arguement to be made for that, but there is the risk of bad traffic crowding out the good, both at the Port and at IE terminals. There could also be congestion issues between Redondo and the IE terminals, which would drive up costs and perhaps require what ever govt agency was pushing such a project to either pay congestion costs or fund rail capacity expansion, which could amount to real money but would get truck traffic off crowded freeways.
The whine about PSR increasing train size is irrelevant. I am 99.999% sure that the railroads are paying on a per container basis. The number and size of the trains matters not to either party.
Balt is right. Take the 28 trains per day of long haul traffic off the dock, pay your crews, buy your fuel, and pay dividends.
Mac
PNWRMNM If the Port of LA has let its costs climb out of line, as the OP claims they have, that is the Port's problem, not the railroads. The only way declining traffic on the corridor becomes a railroad problem is if the railroads have a minimum volume committment and traffic is approaching it. Paying for air is bad. Does the OP know what the contract says? I do not. I am certain the carriers gave that issue a lot of thought. Steamship companies are marketing east coast traffic to east coast ports. To the extent they succed, transcontinental containers, a major market the Corridor was built to serve, will decline. Stuff happens in a competitive market. Running shuttle trains to the IE makes sense only if the rate is high enough. There may be an environmental arguement to be made for that, but there is the risk of bad traffic crowding out the good, both at the Port and at IE terminals. There could also be congestion issues between Redondo and the IE terminals, which would drive up costs and perhaps require what ever govt agency was pushing such a project to either pay congestion costs or fund rail capacity expansion, which could amount to real money but would get truck traffic off crowded freeways. The whine about PSR increasing train size is irrelevant. I am 99.999% sure that the railroads are paying on a per container basis. The number and size of the trains matters not to either party. Balt is right. Take the 28 trains per day of long haul traffic off the dock, pay your crews, buy your fuel, and pay dividends. Mac
Mac you'll have to go back and re-read my OP. The core of the problem is that the ACTA will have a difficult time recovering the cost of operation leading into negative cashflow. The ACTA is a seperate entity from the ports of LA, and LB. The containers are going to move regardless.. Due to changes in the supply chain many more TEU's are leaving the ports of LA, and LB via the 710 alongside the other routes I mentioned instead of the Alameda Corridor. Most containers from the ports go to the IE for transloading into 53' domestic boxes. Traffic has been on a steady decline year over year on the Alameda Corridor. Tolls are collected per TEU. Non TEU tolls are collected as well from other types of railcars.
Read the two links I included in my OP..
MidlandMike Along the Atlantic ports in the southern US they have built inland "ports" a similar distance from the seaports as LA-IE, and I understand the railroads are participating. I wonder why the same thing can't work in LA LA Land.
Example. Port Savannah to Inland Port in Murray County GA is roughly 400 rail miles.
Ports of LA, and LB to Inland Empire roughly 60 rail miles.
The difference is length of haul. CSX, NS probably just break even on Margins. There could also be a subsidy the ports pay to CSX and NS to move this traffic..
The rates BNSF, and UP would charge for such a move would be expensive to recover cost of operation. Which at that point wouldn't make sense to ship by rail. A shortline can make a go at this short traffic lane.
Convicted One SD60MAC9500 It will require some public monies. Yet if ACTA ever plans to collect funding to pay off state and local bonds I say this is the plan that should move forward. What say you? So I guess you are saying the only way to recover the public monies already sunk into the project, is to spend more public money? Sure! What could go wrong? How about we just pave over the rails and create a "high occupancy vehicle" expressway?
Is this anything new? I can name plenty of public monies that go wasted in other sectors.. The difference here the subsidy would benefit local infrastructure and air quality.
SD60MAC9500 Convicted One SD60MAC9500 It will require some public monies. Yet if ACTA ever plans to collect funding to pay off state and local bonds I say this is the plan that should move forward. What say you? So I guess you are saying the only way to recover the public monies already sunk into the project, is to spend more public money? Sure! What could go wrong? How about we just pave over the rails and create a "high occupancy vehicle" expressway? Is this anything new? I can name plenty of public monies that go wasted in other sectors.. The difference here the subsidy would benefit local infrastructure and air quality.
Whenever tax money isn't spent on some party's 'favorite project', they feature that the money has been wasted. Nothing to see here, move along.
At even one train a day the benefits to the residents of the Alameda Corridor area are incalculable vs. prior routings and the surface disruption train movements caused.
SD60MAC9500 Mac you'll have to go back and re-read my OP. The core of the problem is that the ACTA will have a difficult time recovering the cost of operation leading into negative cashflow. The ACTA is a seperate entity from the ports of LA, and LB. The containers are going to move regardless.. Due to changes in the supply chain many more TEU's are leaving the ports of LA, and LB via the 710 alongside the other routes I mentioned instead of the Alameda Corridor. Most containers from the ports go to the IE for transloading into 53' domestic boxes. Traffic has been on a steady decline year over year on the Alameda Corridor. Tolls are collected per TEU. Non TEU tolls are collected as well from other types of railcars. Read the two links I included in my OP..
I read your referenced documents and a recent credit rating by Moodys. It must have been a slow news day at Railway Age.
The names are changed: the ACTA owns the asset, which was paid for with callable bonds that mature in 2037. The ports are on the hook to each make up 20% of any cash flow short fall. The ACTA is now retiring about $200 million of debt per year, without participation by the Ports, so there is plenty of cash flow in sight to pay the debt. I did not see what the total owed is, but did not read each and every document.
The ACTA's base agreement goes to 2062, so they have time to refinance the debt if necessary.
This is not the railroad's problem.
Rail service to the IE is non competitive because the haul is too sort to recover the terminal costs and the ACTA's fee which is about $60 per TEU or $120 for a 40' box, in the few miles involved. After 60 years of reducing on train labor content, labor costs are not the big deal they once were. The minor savings in labor cost that might be gained by shortlining a container shuttle to the IE would not be worth the labor relations costs, and there are far bigger issues.
A shuttle will have to stand on its own merits, make a contribution to overhead and profit, and not impose delay costs on other traffic, and not displace high revenue traffic from the IE terminal. The traffic will not pay the rates required.
If the politicians want to shift IE box traffic to rail that all they have to do is slap on a high enough out gate charge on truck traffic to the IE, eliminate the ACTA charge, and use some or all of the truck surcharge to pay part of the rail rate on such a move. That would be revolutionary and I do not expect to see it even in supposidly 'green' California.
I say again, this is NOT a railroad problem. The industry has plenty of its own. No need to borrow trouble as a former boss used to say.
SD60MAC9500 I can name plenty of public monies that go wasted in other sectors.
Well, let me begin with an assurance that "this" is not intended as a personal attack. I enjoy reading your posts.
But, the above is what I call "stinkin thinkin". And we see a lot of it. "The government subsidizes airports, therefore passenger rail is "owed" a subsidy" "The government subsidizes highways, therefore freight rail is owed infrastructure subsidy"...etc etc
Sorry, but thinking like that inspires me to resist.
If the bag of goods the taxpayer was sold for the A.C. turned out to be a pie in the sky. I just don't see more big dreamers with fancy architectural renderings as anything besides "more of the same ol same ol".
If it was such a grande opportunity, then lazy rich people with no desire to do any real work themselves would be lining up for the chance to allow their money to work for them..
greyhoundsOK, what I’d like is suggestions on how to make it work. What I’m expecting is a lot of reasons why it can’t possibly work.
Witha that reasoning, you already won your argument.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann greyhounds OK, what I’d like is suggestions on how to make it work. What I’m expecting is a lot of reasons why it can’t possibly work. Witha that reasoning, you already won your argument.
greyhounds OK, what I’d like is suggestions on how to make it work. What I’m expecting is a lot of reasons why it can’t possibly work.
Who was the Alameda Corridor project intended to benefit the most?
To my mind - taking trains away from disrupting all the other surface transportation means makes the public in the area served by the Corridor project the big beneficaries with every local trip they make each and every day they live. The fact the it benefits the railroad is a secondary consideration.
zugmannWitha that reasoning, you already won your argument.
I do like the idea of taking a Brandt truck home with me. Save me on my gas. Neighbors might not be on board, though.
Quick way to get HSR running from Union Station to Long Beach ..
zugmannI do like the idea of taking a Brandt truck home with me. Save me on my gas. Neighbors might not be on board, thoug
greyhoundsDo you have a serious comment on this?
We're being serious?
greyhoundsOK, let us think outside the box here.
Lake Havasu was really thriving before the pandemic. I say: flood the A.C., install a couple boat ramps, build a casino or two, and use any money left over for a nice wetlands restoration project.
greyhoundsAny time anyone suggests change people line up to explain why it can’t possibly work.
Typical reaction to new ideas on here, as in most places. Homeostasis is dominant, unfortunately.
greyhounds zugmann Witha that reasoning, you already won your argument. Just going from experience. Any time anyone suggests change people line up to explain why it can’t possibly work.
zugmann Witha that reasoning, you already won your argument.
How many movements to the IE would your 15-25 container "trains" add?
BackshopSo you want a bunch of "yes men"? Ain't gonna happen. How many movements to the IE would your 15-25 container "trains" add?
What is excess and how does it create shortage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1JlYZQG3lI
PNWRMNM This is not the railroad's problem. A shuttle will have to stand on its own merits, make a contribution to overhead and profit, and not impose delay costs on other traffic, and not displace high revenue traffic from the IE terminal. The traffic will not pay the rates required. If the politicians want to shift IE box traffic to rail that all they have to do is slap on a high enough out gate charge on truck traffic to the IE, eliminate the ACTA charge, and use some or all of the truck surcharge to pay part of the rail rate on such a move. That would be revolutionary and I do not expect to see it even in supposidly 'green' California. I say again, this is NOT a railroad problem. The industry has plenty of its own. No need to borrow trouble as a former boss used to say. Mac
I never said it was a railroad problem as I'm not putting the onus on the BNSF, UP, or the Pacific Harbor Line. The whole point is how do we utilize an underperforming assest such as the AC to it's potential. A shuttle service using the Pacific Harbor Line from dock to the IE would be the immediate solution to getting Trucks off the 710, etc.. Putting that traffic onto the AC can help to recover it's cost going forward. There's currently around 40,000 trucks/day utilizing the 710 from and to the ports. Let's say 20% or 8,000 trucks are TEU moves. That's pretty substantial.. Getting that traffic off the 710 will reduce traffic along with better local air quality. So there's environmental benefit as well.
PNWRMNM Rail service to the IE is non competitive because the haul is too sort to recover the terminal costs and the ACTA's fee which is about $60 per TEU or $120 for a 40' box, in the few miles involved. After 60 years of reducing on train labor content, labor costs are not the big deal they once were. The minor savings in labor cost that might be gained by shortlining a container shuttle to the IE would not be worth the labor relations costs, and there are far bigger issues.
Which one is it? Is the length of haul the problem or is labor not the issue?
Yes we understand it's expensive for BNSF, and UP to haul this traffic. However for a shortline such as Pacific Harbor Line it's not.
The ports approached BNSF, and UP years ago to discuss this very idea I mentioned here.. The only difference is the proposal had the C1's providing the service. Using a shortline such as PHL would get low cost and consistent service. PHL already has rights on the AC to Lynwood. Extend rights to the entire AC which terminates at Redondo Jct. Getting trackage rights on UP's Alhambara Sub and/or Los Angeles Sub maybe the best bet due to it's higher capacity (map here Lynwood is where the old Cargill site was on the map). Or maybe they can get slots on Metrolinks nearby Alhambra Sub. Overnight service? A service case exist.. It's not about why it can't work. How do we make it work? Or should the ports eliminate the TEU charge and pay a subsidy to BNSF, and UP to cover CAPEX and OPEX?
Convicted One SD60MAC9500 I can name plenty of public monies that go wasted in other sectors. Well, let me begin with an assurance that "this" is not intended as a personal attack. I enjoy reading your posts. But, the above is what I call "stinkin thinkin". And we see a lot of it. "The government subsidizes airports, therefore passenger rail is "owed" a subsidy" "The government subsidizes highways, therefore freight rail is owed infrastructure subsidy"...etc etc Sorry, but thinking like that inspires me to resist. If the bag of goods the taxpayer was sold for the A.C. turned out to be a pie in the sky. I just don't see more big dreamers with fancy architectural renderings as anything besides "more of the same ol same ol". If it was such a grande opportunity, then lazy rich people with no desire to do any real work themselves would be lining up for the chance to allow their money to work for them..
No need to preface Convicted One. You understand the pricinple of civil discourse. It maybe a bad line of thinking. When I said other sectors I meant to say outside of transportation.
The AC has benefited local surface traffic. However the prime reason the AC is underutilized is due to changes in the logistics chain. This was otuside the realm of the AC.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.