Building Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors: A Public Policy Forum, University of Delaware, February Inter-metropolitan Rail Corridors and Regional Development Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Hofstra University, New York Paper available at:

Transport Corridors ■Building connectivity A “natural” structure; follows the “path of least resistance”. Connects the most accessible locations. Transport reinforce the importance of some locations. Corridors multiply this importance through a “funnel effect”. Current phase of rationalization. A - Feeders B - Interconnection C - Corridors D - Gateways

Rail Track Mileage and Number of Class I Rail Carriers, United States, Feeders Interconnection Corridors Gateways A - Feeders B - Interconnection C - Corridors D - Gateways

Transport Corridors ■Multimodal perspective Corridors within corridors; superposition of respective transport markets. Maritime: Global reach of the corridor. Fluvial / coastal: Structuring axis with barging potential. Land: Regional mobility. Gateways: Interface with global or regional supply chains. Competition or complementarity; rationalization of freight distribution. Road River Rail Maritime Gateway

Major US Modal Gateways, 2004

Corridors and Regional Development ■A perspective on regional development Outcome of individual initiatives (entrepreneurs or corporations). Innovations and capital formation are rewarded risks (profits) pertaining to the allocation of capital in new ventures. ■Corridor impacts Corridors used to be regional structures: Exploitation of regional comparative advantages. Corridors and regional development strongly linked. Extensions of the global economy: Consumption-based corridors. Production-based corridors. 3 major paradigms to articulate this view.

Corridors and Regional Development Order HighLow Location and accessibility HighLow Specialization and interdependency Gateway Flows Distribution

Corridors and Regional Development ■What about public policy? Governments can try to provide infrastructure but cannot do much about the development process itself: Growing lack of public confidence. History of misallocations. Corridors and public policy: Growing interest to “plan” according to a corridor framework (e.g. I95 Corridor Coalition). Consensus-based approach. Not to fall into the “social equity” trap. Rail corridors are bound to play an increasing role in policy: Providing regional accessibility in a congested setting. Help develop a more “sustainable” national transport policy.

Shift in Public Transport Policy Perspectives ConventionalEmerging Independent ModesIntermodal Systems Local EconomiesRegional / Global Economies Independent Jurisdictions (“turf wars”) Coalitions / Consensus Users (public subsidy)Customers (revenue generation) Build (infrastructure provision)Manage (optimization of existing resources) Plan (regulations; political signals)Market (deregulations; price signals)

Types of Rail Corridors TypeFunctionExamples Short distanceModal shift, improved capacity. Public transit Alameda, Panama Hinterland accessExpand market area, reduce distribution costs & congestion PIDN, Virginia Inland port Inter-metropolitanProvide accessibility to a system of cities Europe’s HST network LandbridgeLong distance container flows, continuity for international trade North America Circum-hemisphericIntegrated global transport chains Northern East-West Corridor

Short Distance Rail Corridor ■Alameda 20 mile long rail cargo expressway: Linking the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail lines near Downtown Los Angeles (about 45 minutes). Jointly used by BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe; 40%) and Union Pacific (60%). Half of it underground (10 miles). About 30% of the port transshipment traffic handled through Alameda. Unique example of an intermodal rail corridor; financially sound to replicate?

Port of Los Angeles Port of Long Beach CBD UP & BNSF Railyards Mid-Corridor Trench (10 miles) Alameda Corridor UP & BNSF Railyards Port of Los Angeles Port of Long Beach Thruport Port Cluster

Short Distance Rail Corridor ■Challenges for the Alameda corridor Did not perform as expected: 50% less traffic than anticipated. Significant competition from trucking. Local bound freight transport; 50 to 65%. Relative transport costs: Efficient road logistics. Relocation of the bottleneck down the chain. High intermodal costs Trucking dependant local FDCs.

Number of Trains Running Through the Alameda Corridor per Year and Containers Handled by the San Pedro Port Cluster

Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway, (TEU)

Inter-Metropolitan Rail Corridors ■Challenges and opportunities Road congestion: Increases costs and lowers reliability. Improves the distance advantages of rail (passengers and freight). Circulation bottlenecks: Road access to many terminals impaired. Aging infrastructure unable to accommodate modern operations (e.g. double-stacking). Intermodal capacity: COFC capacity at ports and inland. Modal shift: Separate freight and passenger traffic; modal complementarity. Freight diversion: Transloading at strategic locations.

Boston – Washington Corridor: Volume to Capacity Ratio

Rail Ownership, Intermodal Facilities and Freight Clusters

The Boston / Washington Port Hinterland

Travel Times before and after the Introduction of a High Speed Train Service for some Inter-Metropolitan Rail Corridors (hours)

Modal Share of the Madrid-Seville Corridor before and after the Introduction of a High Speed Train (AVE)

North American High Speed Dreams

Landbridges and Circum-Hemispheric Corridors ■Issues with rail landbridges One of the most active and dynamic rail corridors: Mainly the outcome of transpacific trade. Cooperation between rail operators and maritime shippers. Based on a maritime / land interface: Efficient port container terminals. Double-stack rail links. LA / Chicago / NY : 80 hours. The Thruport challenge for long distance rail corridors: Market fragmentation. Supply chain fragmentation. Ownership fragmentation.

The North American Landbridge

The Northern East-West Freight Corridor

Conclusion ■Global modal shift in the making Resurgence of rail and rail corridors from the 1980s. Strategy to accommodate transport demand, alleviate higher energy costs and cope with congestion. ■Adaptation of rail corridors to mobility requirements Passengers and freight are two completely different systems. Passengers: Can be competitive for medium distances. Dubious profitability (global trend). Freight: Even with intermodal efficiency, freight rail corridors remain a long distance service. Significant opportunities (containerization & terminal efficiency).