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.
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.
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
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..
Maybe shippers are tired of the dockworker strikes and are using other ports or the Panama Canal more.
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
Keeping 28 trains a day off of the surface problems instead of 60 is far from a failure.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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?
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?
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.
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.