AASHTO Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report:
A Retrospective
1
AASHTO Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report:
Policy Questions
Do the truck and rail freight systems have the capacity to
handle the growing volume of freight – even if mode shares
remain constant?
Do the public benefits of a freight-rail system warrant public
investment to expand freight-rail capacity?
2020 Additional Truck Tons
2020 Additional Rail Tons
2000 Truck Tons
2000 Rail Tons
AASHTO Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report:
The Bottom Line
Freight volumes are growing with the economy; this growth will
strain the nation’s freight system
Rail freight productivity is challenged by congestion and
capacity choke points along national corridors, at intermodal
terminals, and at urban rail interchanges
Public rail investment historically has treated the bottom of the
system: grade crossings, branch lines, and commuter rail
services
Present need is to treat the top: nationally significant corridors,
intermodal terminals and connectors, and urban rail
interchanges
Public investment could produce significant savings in highway
infrastructure, highway user, and shipper costs
Freight Rail Since the AASHTO Report
4
“AASHTO SCORT 2010
Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report”
~2000 ~2010 ~2005
Freight Demand and Rail Expansion Investment
AASHTO
FRBL
~2000
AAR
Rail Capacity
~2005
“SCORT”
FRBL
~2010
National
Freight
Demand
(tons)
15B (2000)
26B (2020)
~70%
15B (2005)
29B (2035)
~90%
12B (2010)
20B (2035)
~65%
Additional
Investment
Needed in
Base Case*
$2.6B
per year to 2020
$1.4B
per year to 2035
~$1B (guesstimate)
per year to 2035
5
* Base Case defined as providing capacity expansion sufficient to keep pace with projected economic growth and
freight-rail demand and assuming no significant change in modal shares.
6
AASHTO
FRBL
~2000
AAR
Rail Capacity
~2005
“SCORT”
FRBL
~2010
Freight
Volume
Pax
Volume
Rail
LOS Approximately the same
network LOS as 2005
Freight Demand, 2000-2035
7
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Bill
ion
s o
f To
ns
1998
2004
2007
2009
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on IHS-Global Insight, Inc. TRANSEARCH
data and economic projections for multiple years from 1998 to 2009.
Rail Commodities, 2000-2010
8
Source: American Association of Railroads
Commodity Percent Change in Tons Originated
Metallic ores 126%
All other commodities 41%
Chemicals & allied prod. 20%
Farm products 17%
Food & kindred products 16%
Misc. mixed shipments 9%
Coal 7%
Waste & scrap materials 7%
Petroleum & coke 4%
Non-metallic minerals -3%
Pulp, paper & allied prod. -15%
Stone, clay & glass prod. -17%
Metals & products -26%
Motor vehicles & equip. -46%
Lumber & wood products -50%
9
U.S. Freight Railroad Performance, 1964-2011
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
1964 1974 1984 1994 2004
Source: American Association of Railroads
Revenue
Volume
Productivity
Price
Staggers Act
(deregulation)
October 1980
Class I RRs
(Index 1981 = 100)
Average Train Speed (mph), 1987-2011
10
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
Source: American Association of Railroads
Railroad Capital Spending, 2003-2012
($ billions)
11
$5.9 $6.2 $6.4
$8.5 $9.2
$10.2 $9.9 $9.8
$11.6
$13.0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012e
Notes: Data are for U.S. Class I freight railroads. “e” indicates
estimated.
Source: Association of American Railroads
“The New Bottom Line”
RRs keeping pace with growth
RRs recovered traffic faster than other modes coming out
of recession, but coal volumes have been declining
RRs improving service performance to increase market
share and revenues
Some capacity to shift future freight from highway to rail,
but primarily for longer-haul traffic
Major challenge is to serve and capture domestic short-
to-medium-haul intermodal traffic
12