CSSC Regional Rail Partners, September 18, 2012

Chesapeake Connector:Freight and Passenger Rail Benefits

Study

Chesapeake Connector

Project summary Key questions Review of project documents Interviews with stakeholders Development of cost estimates for project

alternatives Analysis of Cost & Benefits

Page 2

Key Questions - Economic Benefits

What is the economic benefit to freight railroads and regional industries?

What are the benefits to passenger rail operations (intercity and commuter)?

Are there economic benefits to the region if the track is a high speed passenger line, as opposed to a reliever track for freight and commuter operations?

Page 3

Key Questions - Grade Separation

What is the cost/benefit difference between a grade separated crossing to the third track and an at-grade crossing?

Where should the grade separation be located?

Would the grade separation provide an expanded freight operating window on the NEC to justify the cost?

Is the third track worth pursuing without a grade separated crossing?

Page 4

Sources of Uncertainty

Amtrak plans for High Speed Rail Commuter rail service options (2005

study found it to be difficult to justify extension of MARC or SEPTA Commuter service to Cecil County)

BRAC and resulting development patterns and forecasts

Outlook for freight rail users in the region

Page 5

Project Location

Page 6

Source: Amtrak Master Plan

Black color illustrates current conditions; red illustrates near-term priorities; blue illustratesmedium-term projects; and, green illustrates long-term projects.

Number of Weekday Passengers Boarding MARC Services - Updated For BRAC Growth

Station 2003 “Track A Feasibility Study”

Results (H-1 model with old

demographics)*

H-1 Model (updated

demographics)

2005-Developed Model

(updated demographics)

Perryville 36 210 123North East 101 143 104Elkton 166 138 145Newark 165 262 251Churchman’s Crossing

231 269 159

Wilmington 125 145 275Total 824 1167 1057

Page 7

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff. Track A Extension Feasibility Study Phase II. MARC PENN LINE EXTENSION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION July 28, 2006

* - Figures are actually based on 2025 ridership estimates.

Current Study Findings

Page 8

Reviewed roughly 50 documents and reports

No capital cost estimate available for project Many conclusions concerning freight impact are

keyed to limited operating window at night, which is not applied by formal agreement

Sufficient capacity exists to add transit service Limited outlook for freight growth along the

Delmarva Introduction of HSR is a large uncertainty

Current Study Findings

Page 9

Stakeholder Interviews Amtrak Norfolk Southern (national and regional

operations) Maryland & Delaware Railroad Maryland MTA DelDOT Port of Baltimore Port of Wilmington Sussex County Economic Development Attended Delmarva Freight Summit

Current Study Findings

Page 10

Freight Service Issues: Freight trains are occasionally permitted to cross from

Port Road to NEC during the mid-day period Key inbound products on the Delmarva Secondary

include aggregates, coal, crude oil and supplies for the poultry industry

Growth outlook for all products is limited Current inbound movement for freight is not time

sensitive for all products Unable to find instances where the port, a shipper, or

the rail lines were unable to attract business or lost business specifically because of rail service

Current data collection shows low benefits

Current Study Findings

Page 11

Passenger Service Issues Limited transit service could be accommodated

in the corridor without the Connector, modeled on operations elsewhere in the corridor

At this time, there is no confirmed date to extend MARC service along this track section

Investment in Next Generation HSR could affect the need for the Connector, but there are no firm dates or dedicated funding for HSR

Existing data collection shows minimal benefits to passenger service at this time

Current Study Findings

Page 12

Option A

Current Study Findings

Page 13

Option A at bridge over NEC

Current Study Findings

Page 14

Option B

Current Study Findings

Page 15

Cost EstimatesOption A Guideway & Track Elements: $167,257,175 Sitework & Special Conditions: $33,032,574 Systems: $24,828,636 ROW, Land & Existing Improvements: $7,950,000 Professional Services: $ 78,443,359 Unallocated Contingency $37,955,514 Total: $349,467,514Option B Guideway & Track Elements: $49,885,500 Sitework & Special Conditions: $29,582,574 Systems: $23,9891,136 ROW, Land & Existing Improvements: $5,460,000 Professional Services: $ 36,267,665 Unallocated Contingency $17,023,614 Total: $162,200,489

Next Steps

Page 16

Complete the benefit cost assessment Document findings in final report:

Assess impact of Susquehanna River Bridge replacement project

Calculate impacts to existing businesses if rail freight movement is reduced on NEC due to increasing passenger service

Present findings to Advisory Committee – October

Page 17

Regional Freight

Page 18

Regional Freight

Meeting with NS – Harrisburg Division ChiefSpring 2012

Part of scheduled meetings for Chesapeake Connector Project

19

20

21

22

23

24

25