Crude by Rail

Photo by Justin Franz | Flathead Beacon

Unbeknownst to many here in the United States, our nation ”will surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer by 2015, and be close to energy independence in the next two decades, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), a Paris-based adviser to 28 energy-consuming nations,” so writes William C. Vantuono in Railway Age Magazine.  Largely this is due to increasing outputs of both crude oil and natural gas from shale formations in the United States. 

Enabling the Latent Production Capacity

Much of this new capacity is made possible by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”).  The safety and environmental impacts of this process is worthy of its own lengthy consideration, so I will not digress to the discuss whether this is a good or bad path for the nation in this blog post.

The southern leg of the Keystone Pipeline
in construction while controversy swirls
around the norther segment.
Photo by Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

Nevertheless, while that discussion is ongoing, there is presently the dilemma of how to transport all this oil, while there is not sufficient pipeline capacity, with such proposals as the Keystone Pipeline raising its own environmental issues related to construction impacts as well as impacts of possible leaks once the pipeline is in service.

How is this gap between demand and transport capacity being met? 

The Growth of Crude by Rail (CBR) 

DOT-111 tank cars carry crude oil.
Photo by Harvey Henkelmann

The railroads have stepped in, allocating tank cars (typically of the DOT-111 specification).  This type of tank car is plentiful in North America, as it constitutes 69% of the US tank car fleet and 80% of the Canadian tank cars. The avail-ability of these cars positioned the railroads to step in where the pipelines remained underdevelop-ment and wrapped in controversy.

Compared to fixed pipelines, CBR presents many inherent advantages:

• More nimble in meeting immediate demands, compared to the development time for a pipeline, which includes design, permitting, financing, constructing, testing, and commissioning, which can take well over a decade.
• Whereas a pipeline is a fixed asset between a fixed Point A and a fixed Point B, the railroads can respond to shifting locations of Points A and B.

Nevertheless, this option is not without risk.  This is most vividly illustrated by the horrific runaway-train accident in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which resulted in a fire-ball that killed 47 and destroyed 30 buildings in the town.  While the causes of this accident are many (and worthy of a separate blog post), it is the death and destruction that point to the volatility of the cargo and the risks inherent in CBR.

Risk Comparison:  CBR and Pipelines

For CBR, the risks are both in leaks from railcars (without an accident) and in leaks and potential combustion resulting from an accident.  With pipelines, the principal risk is in leaks.

When it comes to leaks, it appears that CBR has a better track record, in terms of spills per ton-mile between 2002 and 2012:

• railroads spilled 2.2 gallons of oil per million ton-miles 
• pipelines spilled 6.3 gallons of oil per million ton-miles 

This is according to the Association of American Railroads, as reported in Railway Age, July 15, 2013.

Still, not all spills are equal.  To assess risk, one needs to consider how to define the risks and how well the risks can be mitigated.  

CBR travel on many rail routes and it is impossible to predict where the next spill will occur, be it at location where a spill is easily contained before damage to humans or the environment happens, or somewhere that the impacts are more significant.  With a fixed pipeline, the higher risk locations are more easily definable and additional accommodations can be made.  With railcars, in my opinion, you always have to consider a crash after a collision or derailment.

Double wall pipe

In both cases, a first line of risk mitigation is containment.  For a long time, fuel tanks and pipelines have been "doubled walled" or a pipe within a pipe.  So, if the pipe or inner tanks springs a leak, the outer pipe or tank can contain the spill.  Bot in both cases, there are other causes of spills that are more sudden and catastrophic.

Pipelines can be damaged by external forces, from a collision, accidental impact from construction equipment, earthquakes, or intentional damage from sabotage or terrorism.  Pipelines under pressure can experience pressure surges that potentially could open up a joint.  Various appurtenances (e.g., valves, branch connections, testing or sampling ports) are of differing construction and these items or the interface with the pipeline could be weak spot.  While pipeline designers know all these risks and consider them, sometimes something can go wrong that was not anticipated or is due to operating the line in an improper manner.

Similar risk issues exist with railcars, and railcar designers can design cars with that in mind.  

Making Tank Cars Safer

Admittedly, the DOT-111 is an old specification and needs to be updated.  Granted much of today's fleet has been upgraded, according to Railway Age, "to AAR [Association of American Railroads] standards implemented in 2011. These standards include double hulls, energy-absorbing head (end) shields, recessed top valves, and shelf-type couplers that are less prone to detaching vertically (and thus puncturing a car) in a derailment."  Nevertheless, the scene in Lac-Mégantic was so horrific, it would be impossible to stay the status-quo on tank car design.

In November, I was pleasant-ly surprised when the AAR, which is the association of the railroads, proactively came out in favor of stronger regulation of its own industry, specifically in regard to the design of tank cars.   As reported in Railway Age, "The Association of American Railroads (AAR) on Thursday, Nov. 14, 2013, urged the U.S. Department of Transportation 'to press for improved federal tank car regulations by requiring all tank cars used to transport flammable liquids to be retrofitted or phased out, and new cars built to more stringent standards.'  In comments filed with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), AAR said the safety upgrades it recommends will substantially decrease the likelihood of a release if a tank car is involved in an accident."

This is a positive step forward.

The Future of CBR

While I and many others would like to see more renewable and cleaner energy sources linked with energy conservation, we will not get to that future day magically and overnight.  In the interim, our nation runs on energy and the economics of domestic oil production will drive the demand for transporting crude oil from the wells to the refineries.

Will the energy industry wait for the pipeline capacity to be increased?

They simply can't wait that long.

Are the politicians that think the Keystone Pipeline is a key to our energy self-sufficiency about 10 years behind the times?

You bet!  (As are other fossils in DC who think there is any future in coal!)

Will better tank cars prevent any future spill?

No one can promise there won't be another oil spill, but safer tank cars is a good step for now.  Only when we move completely away from oil as a fuel will we end oils spills for good.

Is CBR here to stay?

Unlikely.  But count it in for the next decade, at least.

FRA Reports: Freight Trains More Fuel-Efficient Than Trucks

A recently released study from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) concludes that railroads are truly more fuel-efficient than truck for freight shipment. As reported by Railway Age , the findings confirm what I’ve know for some time: the lower coefficient of friction of steel on steel translates into less fuel per ton-mile. Adding to the inherent advantage governed by the laws of physics, the FRA also noted technological advances in more fuel-efficient locomotives:

“While all types of transportation are vital to the distribution of goods across the country, this study shows that utilizing America’s freight rail system can lead to significant fuel savings,” said FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo (pictured at left). “The environmental benefits of these positive changes over the last two decades are enormous. We look forward to working with the freight rail industry to make sure these gains continue.”

The text of the final report (Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors, dated November 19, 2009 ) is even more impressive. Section 1.5 summarizes the main finding:

“For all movements, rail fuel efficiency is higher than truck fuel efficiency in terms of ton-miles per gallon. The ratio between rail and truck fuel efficiency indicates how much more fuel efficient rail is in comparison to trucks. As illustrated in Exhibit 1-1, rail fuel efficiency varies from 156 to 512 ton-miles per gallon, truck fuel efficiency ranges from 68 to 133 ton-miles per gallon, and rail truck fuel efficiency ratios range from 1.9 to 5.5."

Translating that to English, in case you didn't get the impact of it, means that rail is between twice and 5.5 times more fuel efficient!

With ongoing technological development in locomotive efficeincy, the scorecard for rail will only improve more. Already, there are the locomotive equivalent of the Prius. And even more emissions reductions for yard locomotives, to the point where there is even a working battery-powered yard engine prototype being tested.

Add the environmental advantage to rail to the econonomic advantage to the tax payer: every frieght car on privately-owned and maintained, tax-paying freight rail lines saves the equivalent of four trucks pounding the life out of highways and bridges that will be repaired and replaced at taxpayer expense. The economic benefit of rail is truely a two-for: reduces the cost of taxpayer-finances public infrastructure while adding revenue (thus, higher tax payments) for the freight railroads.

Longfellow Bridge Reconstruction -- Long Overdue but Plans Need Work!

The Longfellow Bridge between Cambridge Street in Boston and Main Street/Broadway in Cambridge is finally in the design stages of a long-awaited rehabilitation. Much of the minor steel framing needs repair/ replacement, the entire deck needs replacing, and the towers are leaning and need to be rebuilt.

Good news: Mass. Highway Dept. (MHD) has the design under way and just filed its Environmental Notification Form (ENF), part of a state environmental review process for projects.

Not so good news: This is a vital transportation link (Red Line, pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles) and these links need to be better accommodated during construction.

I have copied my letter of comments on the ENF below, which details my concerns regarding how the project is accomplished.


Though I may have some concerns, it is paramount that the project proceed as soon as possible, once the construction staging issues are incorporated into the project plans.


___________________________________________________


Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Anne Canaday, EEA #14384
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114-2524
Anne.canaday@state.ma.us


RE: Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD)
Reconstruction of Longfellow Bridge
Boston & Cambridge, MA
Comments on Environmental Notification Form

Dear Sec. Bowles:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. For the ease of identifying comments in contrast to statements and discussions, my comments are in underlined italics.

The Longfellow Bridge is an important multi-modal link connecting Boston and Cambridge and part of a regional system of roadways, transit lines, walkways and bicycle facilities. It is also an important route for emergency preparedness, in that it leads directly to a major hospital (Massachusetts General).

I have multiple interests in this project.

First, around 1982, I was the project engineer with DeLeuw, Cather & Company, consultants for the MBTA for the design of the platform extensions of Charles Station onto the Longfellow Bridge:

• MHD and their consultants (Jacobs) can blame me for the difficulty of the pinch point created where the platform extensions reach onto the bridge. I designed those pinch points into the roadway to accommodate the platform extensions.


• Back in 1982, I stood with Dave Lenheart of the then MDC on Span #1[1] of the bridge with the deck opened up as we looked upon the rusted structural steel. Thus, I can say personally that this repair project is long overdue and MHD should expedite this project to the extent possible.

______________
[1] Span #1 is labeled on sheet 32 of 59 (titled “Construction Stages, Stage 1, Sheet 1 of 4”) in Attachment 2 to the ENF.


Second, I use all 4 modes of the bridge, particularly in getting to work. Normally, I take the Red Line (over the Longfellow Bridge). When the weather is nice, I try to bike in once or twice a week (over the Longfellow Bridge). When I need a vehicle for work-related travel, I drive (over the Longfellow Bridge). And sometimes if the weather is nice (like after the MEPA hearing last week) I walk home (over the Longfellow Bridge).

So, clearly I have a stake in ensuring that the project will maintain all four modes during and after construction.


Final Configuration
I applaud the project design as presented in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) in its inclusion of all four modes at the end of construction: pedestrians, bicycles, the Red Line and motor vehicles.

Alternatives for Eastbound (Inbound) Boston ApproachPage 6 of the ENF describes three alternatives were developed to address the pinch point caused by the inbound platform extension I designed some 27 years ago.

At first, I would agree with the preferred alternative 1 for the Boston approach (as described on page 6 of the ENF). This alternative accommodates a sidewalk, a full bike lane and 3 approach lanes to the Charles Circle signalized intersection.

However, it moves one retaining wall into parkland. Regarding this issue, there are both state and federal concerns:

• From a historic resources perspective, I agree with the ENF’s assessment that although there is some loss of parkland, this is compensated by the historically-sensitive treatment of the relocated wall. Assuming the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC) and the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) concur, this issue should not delay the project in terms of the historic approval process on the state and local level. The MHD should confirm that moving the wall is acceptable to the MHC and BLC.


• On the other hand, this is a 4(f) parkland taking from a federal perspective. Since MHD intends to use federal funds in part for this project, MHD should address this issue of whether the 4(f) issue will delay the project start-up by requiring a separate environmental review under the federal NEPA process. The MHD should address this issue of possible project delay due to 4(f) issues related to federal funding.

Conclusion on Alternatives:
I have different conclusions that depend on whether there would be a delay in federal funding due to 4(f) issues:

• If there are significant schedule delays in project startup due to parkland taking, then I agree with the ENF’s conclusion that Alternative 1 is the best.


• If there are significant schedule delays in project startup due to parkland takings, then I recommend Alternative 3 (no wall relocation) combined with the widening of the sidewalk over Span #1 as included in Alternative 1.

Construction Staging
During construction, it is essential that all four modes be accommodated. But more than that, construction presents an opportunity for an exemplary approach: incorporating energy and environmental policy by shifting modal use from motor vehicles to the more modes that expend less energy and pollute less (i.e., walking, bicycling and transit). The MHD should look into ways to reduce motor vehicle trips and shift trips to the other 3 modes.

Page 7 of the ENF describes two options, both of which raise some concerns.

Option 1 would take an estimated 12 to 18 months less than Option 2. It would maintain Red Line service and one 10-foot wide sidewalk for pedestrians. However, it would maintain only one inbound travel lane a little over 14.5 feet for both bicycles and motor vehicles. Outbound bicycles and motor vehicles would be detoured over the Cragie Bridge. Problem with this approach include the following:

• The outbound bicycle detour is simply not reasonable. Bicyclists will not detour to the traffic-congested Leverett Circle area. Rather, they will travel westbound on the open sidewalk. A better plan for two-way bicycle accommodation during construction is needed.


• The outbound motor vehicle detour into the traffic-congested Leverett Circle is equally unreasonable. The peak hour delays waiting for several light cycles at the Circle and at the Land Blvd./Gilmore Bridge/O’Brien Highway intersection. I would also detour traffic towards the site of the relocation of Lechmere Station for the Green Line Extension at the exact same timeframe as this project. Furthermore, consideration should be given to detouring traffic towards the Harvard Bridge (Massachusetts Avenue). A better detour plan is needed that considers a more regional approach and considers other EOT projects (e.g., Green Line Extension)


• However the greatest concern is for emergency access. With MGH at Charles Circle, the Longfellow is an important ambulance access route. Likewise, the bridge is used for other emergency purposes including mutual response to fires as well as police and other law enforcement agencies. Let me emphasize the importance of this issue. Two years ago, my son and I went bike riding. Once home, his heart rate did not decline. After a few hours my wife took him to Cambridge Hospital. Once they realized the situation, they were immediately rushed to Massachusetts General Hospital where they had the experienced doctors who know what immediate action was needed. My son is fine now, in part because the ambulance was able to cross the Longfellow Bridge without delay.I cannot underestimate the importance of maintain emergency access in both directions.
  
  o MHD should consult with Boston, Cambridge and state emergency departments (police, fire, EMS) before any further consideration of Option 1.
  o MHD should not pursue Option 1 without provisions for two-way emergency access across the Longfellow Bridge 24/7/365 throughout construction.

Option 2 would take an estimated 12 to 18 months longer than Option 1. It would maintain Red Line service and one 10-foot sidewalk in all phases. It would maintain motor vehicle access in either direction in one or two lanes. It is unclear from the plans included how bicycles would be accommodated during construction.

• Option 2 is clearly superior with regards to emergency access and the detouring of traffic. Still, construction activities will inevitably cause some motorists to seek alternative routes, be they the Craigie or Harvard Bridges or other routes.


• Option 2 does not clearly indicate how two-way bicycle accommodation will be maintained during construction.


• Comments:
  o Option 2 should be considered the preferred option
  o MHD should better describe how two-way bicycle access will be provided through all the states of construction.

Storm DrainageThe ENF states on page 10 that it is not practical to meet all stormwater standards. In particular, the ENF states there is no room on the bridge for sediment collection or pollution removal systems. Also, with the exception of the first 2 spans in Boston, no runoff will be diverted to existing storm drainage systems. For the spans over water, the scuppers will simply drain into the river.

While full diversion of flow does not appear practical, improved water quality could be obtained if it were possible to divert the water quality volume (WQV) or first 1 inch of runoff to some form of sediment control and/or water quality enhancement device.

Consideration of attempting to treat about 1” of runoff was brought up by the representative of the Charles River Watershed Association at the ENF meeting on April 30th.

Based on that comment, my thought was to see if there could be one device per span, maybe located over the pier. The scuppers would drain to this device, which would retain the WQV and let the excess flow discharge to the river. This would at least provide some treatment for the initial runoff, which is more heavily laden with contaminants.

As the ENF does not include any WQV calculations, I have provided a calculation of the WQV for one span of the bridge, based on 1” of runoff:

A = W x L
A = (2’ +11’ + 11’ + 5’ + 10’) x 150’
A = 5,850 SF
A = 0.134 Acres (based on 1 acre = 43,560 SF)

WQV = 1” x A
WQV = 1” x 0.134 Acres
WQV = 0.134 Acre-Inches
WQV = 487.5 CF

This represents a rectangular tank approximately 6’ x 8’ x 10’. Other shapes could be used. The device would need convenient accessways from the roadway to allow inspection, cleaning and other maintenance.

A tank to hold a WQV based on 1/2" of runoff would be half that size.

I am not familiar enough with the structure to determine if such devices could be stowed somewhere above the piers, so they are maintainable but do not create a visual impact.

MHD should consider whether it is feasible to provide some sediment removal and water quality enhancement, be it for a 1” WQV or even 1/2" WQV. This could be by a tank, maybe with a vortex device or a filter, located in the piers. Flows greater than the WQV would overflow, either at the scupper itself or at the tank.


Other Comments

• Section III (Consistency) should include discussion of:
  o Consistency with Grown Policy, and
  o Consistency with the Massachusetts Bicycle Plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the ENF for this very important project. I look forward to seeing the bridge under construction soon and restored to structural good repair in the years to come.

The Benefits of Rail

You may have heard or seen the recent commercials by the major railroad CSX:

• A gallon of fuel moves 1 ton of freight 423 miles
• One train takes the average of 286 trucks off the highways

Finally, there is a railroad is touting the benefits that come with operating at a lower coefficient of friction. Steel wheels on steel rails translate into less fuel needed.

While I've known the many benefits of rail over trucking, it has never been advertised to the general public. Likely, because the public has little interest or concern for railroads, except when they are held up at a grade crossing.

But now CSX believes there is a reason to sell this to the public. And they are hitting the major talking points. In esseence, using less fuel used translates into benefits that both conservatives and liberals can appreciate.

First, the economic benefit: less fuel used saves money. This is something even trucking companies realized in the ‘80s and ‘90s when they employed railroads for cross-country shipping of containers and trailers. Business and the economy in general benefit from lower shipping costs.

Second, less fuel used means less pollution including less greenhouse gas emissions. CSX is touting how shipping by rail is “greener” than trucking. And with new improvements in locomotive fuel efficiency, including Prius-like locomotives, rail is becoming even more environmentally friendly.

Third, when freight moves from highways to rail, it reduces highway traffic (something CSX promotes in one of its commercials). Instead of trucks pounding the payments and bridges built and maintained by gas tax dollars, rail freight runs on privately maintained infrastructure by companies that pay taxes. Why aren't the free-market conservatives all over this one? Shift freight to rail and reduce taxes while promoting business and increasing tax revenues!

Fourth, less use of fossil fuels reduces dependence on foreign oil.

The concept is simple: operating at a lower coefficient of friction, rail freight uses less fuel and produces less emissions.

Postscript: Now, while CSX is spreading the word, no one should believe they are the epitome of sustainability and environmental protection. Any railroad is an industrial operation that produces a number of hazardous materials from the preservative in wood ties to leaky fuel tanks and spills of petroleum products. Still, by advertising a commitment to sustainability and environmental protection, CSX and other railroads are cleaning up the operations.