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.

Future of Coal Traffic for the Freight Railroads

Union Pacific Railroad coal train
 (photograph by Dave Honan)

A watershed moment is coming for the US freight railroads.  Coal traffic, once accounting for as much as 50% of the traffic on some lines, is on the decline.  Coal no longer is king.

In many ways, coal is so much a product of the 19th century.  In its day, coal-fired machines performed tasks with the strength of hundreds of men.  Coal powered machines in factories.  Coal powered the transportation of the the day:  steam ships and steam locomotives.  Coal heated homes.  And coal was an early fuel in the generation of electricity.

Coal powered the industrial revolution.  Coal polluted the air and the lungs of many.

The 20th century brought new fossil fuels.  It took a half century, but diesel fuel displaced coal in locomotives.  Oil and gas replaced coal in the furnaces of American homes.  The newer fuels were far less visible in their pollution of the air, in terms of plumes of coal smoke, and in terms of particulates (otherwise known as soot).  

Perhaps one of the last bastions of coal remains in power generation.  In most cases, railroads transport the coal.

Today, the trends in power generation show the signs, that within a decade or two, coal-fired plants will be relegated to the history books, in much of the US.

While the environmentally minded may be seeing this a result of air quality regulations.  Clearly, this is part of the trend, but the principal driver is the economics of natural gas. 

My work as a civil engineer exposes me to all aspects of what we call infrastructure, from roads and bridges to railroads and transit to utilities and power generation.   

Taking what I hear from professionals in the power industry and from what I observe with various projects, the trend for years has been towards gas-fired generating facilities.  This trend dates back long before the lower gas prices associated with hydraulic fracturing or "fracking."

It takes 15 to 20 years to get a new power plant from someone's idea to the day they flick the switch and generate power.  Virtually all are privately funded (though publicly regulated).  Those who develop new power plants have to take the long view.  And for the last couple of decades, that trend has been towards natural gas.

Simply put, gas has usurped the kingship of coal.   Gas plants today are much more efficient in their use of fuel and far less polluting than coal.  (Granted, gas-firing still produces particulates and green-house gasses, but to a lesser extent than coal.)  Even older coal-fired plants are being converted to natural gas.

Clearly, with all the controversy of environmental impacts of fracking and the fact that natural gas does produce green-house gases, gas is far from the ideal fuel from an environmental perspective.

Still, be it the current trend from coal to natural gas or the eventual progression to renewable power generation, the conclusion for the US freight railroads is clear:  coal traffic is in permanent decline.

(See also my guest editorial in Railway Age.  In that editorial, I was countering the notion that the decline in coal traffic is driven by environmental regulation, whereas my view is that the economics of natural gas that is driving the trend.)

Modal Inequity

Are all transportation modes on an even playing field?

Do some modes have an advantage over other?

And does that advantage skew modal use?

Yes, on all 3 counts.

Freight Transportation

In this blog post, let’s consider the options today for freight transportation:

• Trucks
• Railroads
• Air freight
• Water transport

All four modes operate primarily using private transportation companies. So far, relatively equal.

But now consider the infrastructure for each mode. Here we see the heavy hand of taxpayer government involvement, particularly in 3 of these modes:

• Trucks: Know of any highways or roads owned by a trucking company? The trucking industry is the beneficiary of one of the greatest highway systems in the world. Sure, they pay all sorts of taxes and fees to use the highways, but when the day is done, all they have to do is drive.

• Air freight: Know of any airports owned by an airlines? Other than a few minor airfields for private use, the airports are all owned by government entities which are exempt from state and local taxes. And there’s the heavy hand of the Federal government in air traffic control and post 9/11 security. Sure, the airlines pay fees and taxes, but they benefit from the significant contribution of taxpayers.
  
• Water transport: The waters of the United States are available to all. While some ports are privately owned/operated, most major ports are publically owned. But, when it comes to maintenance (e.g., navigation dredging) or operations (e.g., harbormasters and the Coast Guard), again we see a significant role for government.
  

Let’s also consider the indirect taxpayer contributions to these modes:

• For these 3 modes, the transportation infrastructure is exempt from property taxes.
• Policing for these modes is at taxpayer expense.
• The infrastructure owners and managers are exempt from income taxes on their revenues.

These are indirect costs paid for by taxpayers that result in a competitive advantage to these modes.

Let’s contrast this with the privately owned and operated freight railroads:

• Privately owned infrastructure (rail lines, yards, terminals, support facilities) subject to property taxes. Granted some rail lines near major cities are government-owned, but the majority of the route miles used by freight railroads is still privately owned.
• Privately funded traffic control to govern rail operations.
• Private funding for most infrastructure maintenance and improvements. Granted public funding pays for improvements like grade crossing elimination, but these are generally at the intersection of private and public infrastructure.
• Privately owned businesses subject to income taxes.
• Privately funded police and security to protect the infrastructure.
• Freight railroads run on a “cash” basis, using this year’s profits to fund next year’s infrastructure improvements, while avoiding borrowing.
  

When I take this into consideration, I wonder where are the libertarians, conservatives and Republicans on transportation policy? Clearly, from a conservative or libertarian perspective, freight rail is the mode that aligns with their pro-business, smaller government and anti-tax views. Still, you don’t hear conservatives on talk radio or in campaign speeches railing against the taxpayer’s burden of supporting truckers, airlines and water transport at the detriment of the one mode that’s not looking for a government handout.

But, rail remains the transportation mode that most Americans simply don’t understand. Thus, politicians across the board are happy with the status quo of modal inequity.

Thus is my conclusion: freight rail remains at a competative disadvantage due to the heavy hand of government in the competing modes. What does this mean:

• More goods travel by truck than might do so in a more equital playing field.
• Environmenat impacts: Trucks use more fuel and create more emissions per ton mile than rail. Also trucks run on impervious pavement, which results in more rainfall runoff and related water quality issues than exist for rail, which runs on a pervious stone trackbed, allowing for infiltration of rainfall.
• Impact to public infrastructure: Tons of freight in trucks pounds the life out of bridges and highway pavement, all of which must be maintained and repaired at public expense. Tons of freight running on the rails also takes it toll on bridges and track, but that infrastructure is maintained at no cost to the taxpayer.
• Traffic impacts: For most commodities, it takes 4 truck to carry what can be loaded on a single railcar. For each railcar used in lieu of trucking, 4 less trucks are competing for the limited capacity of public streets and highways.

Granted, not all freight can be shipped by rail. But there should be a strong public interest in shifting the traffic to rail, to reduce traffic, to reduce taxpayer expenditures for bridge and highway work, and lower the impact on the environment of transporting the nation's goods.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a side note, in this 1950s vintage film produced by the New York Central Railroad (NYCRR), advance to time increment 7:30 and you can hear its president putting forth the arguments similar to mine against modal inequity. Recall, at that time, Federal and state governments were building the interstate highway system and airports at taxpayer expense while the railroads were trying to compete.

(This promo film is an interesting trip back in time, with different perspectives on industry, as well as some examples which now seem like ancient technology. A link to the 2-part film "Big Train" is at the blog of the Friends of the High Line. The High Line is a former NYCRR elevated freight line that ran donw the west side of Mahattan. Portions of it have been preerved and converted into a most unique aerial urban "rails-to-trails" liner park.)

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.

Road to Reform? The MassDOT is Coming! The MassDOT is Coming! (Part 1)

Coming in one week is a major reorganization of the state transportation agencies. Right now, Massachusetts has an alphabet soup of agencies loosely organized under the Secretary of Transportation and Public Works. The reorg will create MassDOT, somewhat resembling the normative state DOT (Department of Transportation) that most states have.

The stated reasons for the reorganization are many. There are fiscal considerations such as the savings of consolidating certain administrative functions and reforming retirement programs. There is the idea all state highways and bridges should be maintained and operated by a single agency instead of several. There is the idea of greater transparency, greater responsiveness. And the idea of consolidating transportation policy, decision-making, and funding into a single multi-modal vision.

While the fiscal considerations are the selling point for many, I want to focus on what this means for transportation in Massachusetts.

• Will this end the chronic underfunding of the MBTA?
  
• Will this do anything with the backlog of structurally and functionally deficient bridges?
  
• Who will plow the DCR parkways and bridges this year?
  
• Where is that bus that should have come 15 min. ago?
  

I’ll get to a number of these issues over the course of a series of posts on this topic. But first, my number one argument for creating a DOT.

Argument No. 1 for a DOT
Witness how the taxpayer looses out when there’s an uncoordinated gaggle of transportation agencies each with their narrow vision and objectives. My example takes place along the MBTA Lowell Line, where the proposed Green Line Extension is planned. I’ve been working on projects in this corridor over the last 18 years. For all that time, the MBTA anticipated the Green Line extension and we had even done a preliminary alignment for that extension so that when we designed drainage improvements in 1991, we would design to accommodate the future Green Line.

All the while, MHD (Massachusetts Highway Department) had its consultants designing replacement bridges for the local streets that spanned the MBTA rail corridor. Now MHD could save a lot of money on the new bridges by spanning as narrow a corridor as possible. Shorter bridges are less expensive. So, rather than consider the future Green Line, MHD would rather just design a new bridge to span only the active tracks.

Keep in mind that the Commonwealth had made a commitment to extend the Green Line as mitigation for the Big Dig. And to build the Green Line, the bridges needed to be long enough to span not just the 2 or 3 active tracks, but at least 4 tracks to accommodate the addition of the extension. Nevertheless, over the last 10 years, MHD still built 3 new bridges that are not long enough to accommodate the Green Line Extension.

So, this is clearly a case where a narrowed-focused agency was not making decisions in concert with the state’s commitment for another agency. With such parochial thinking, it is the Commonwealth and ultimately the taxpayers who are the losers.

So, my hope is that a single DOT will ensure that all transportation divisions (bridges, roads, transit, aviation) will be on the same page as far as state commitments and coordination with other proposed projects. Capital and operating expenditures need to be considered in the context of the planning and objectives of the entire state transportation system.

Some Clear Advantages
Theoretically, a single DOT should result in a better approach to policy, funding, and planning:

• A single consistent transportation policy
• An intermodal approach to transportation planning
• Better funding of all modes (particularly the chronically underfunded transit systems and parkways)

My example above illustrates the need for the first two advantages. Let me expound a little on something I’ll call “cross-modal” funding.

Cross-Modal Funding
On the funding side, there should be more opportunities to achieve equity in funding the various modes. In particular, gas tax revenues could more readily fund more that just highways as it typically has in the past. This approach could help out the chronically underfunded MBTA.

But to understand this approach, there needs to be an understanding of how this will benefit the Commonwealth. This starts with understanding that adequate funding for transit and rail will also benefit the state roadway system. As people shift from single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to transit, it frees up roadway capacity, improving highway operations and reducing the wear and tear on roads and bridges. This also should reduce the need to spend funds to increase roadway capacity.

The same is true with freight. Every freight car represents 4 less trucks taking up roadway capacity and pounding the life out of taxpayer funded bridges. Shifting freight, particularly to the privately owned freight lines, off loads the tax burden of repairing and replacing public roads and bridges while providing added revenue to tax-paying freight railroads.

Furthermore, transit and rail use of less real estate than highways to carry the same number of people per hour or tons of freight per hour.

In summary, a shifting of funding to provide reliable passenger transit and encourage freight rail use will provide benefits in terms of lessening the burden of taxpayer-funded maintenance, repair, replacement, and capacity improvements on the state’s public roads and bridges.

More to Come
More discussion will follow in subsequent posts.

High Line Park: A Most Unusual Rail-to-Trail Project

The High Line Park opened this week on the west side of Manhattan. This is probably the most unusual and unique rail-to-trial conversion in the US.

Why? Perhaps because it’s located 30 feet above the city streets. Perhaps because it’s a rail line that few knew it was there. Perhaps because it may be the only rail-to-trail linear park entirely on an elevated steel viaduct.

Also, it is a new approach to the creation of a linear park. The linear park, pioneered by Fredrick Law Olmsted with Boston’s Emerald Necklace, is typically characterized by one or modes of transportation facilities weaving through a long park corridor. High Line Park weaves a pedestrian esplanade with park landscaping within the linear corridor of this Westside viaduct.

High Line Park was one the New York Central Railroad’s West Side fright line, high above 10th Avenue in Manhattan. It was built in the 1930s to replace the street-running tracks that served the Hudson River piers and other industrial customers. The railroad used men on horseback, nicknamed “cowboys,” to guide the trains through the city streets.

The elevated line brought two improvements:
1. It removed the conflicts of running freight trains through busy city streets
2. It was electrified and eliminated the use of steam engines



The elevated line served many west-side customers for years. But with the dawn of interstate highways and the shifting of freight from trains to trucks, the line feel into disuse in the 1970s and abandonment in the 1980s. Interestingly, the out-of-service line remained in the ownership of Conrail and was even transferred to CSX in the Conrail breakup.


As with most unneeded and abandoned structures, the High Line was scheduled for demolition. However, others had another vision. What some saw as an eyesore, others saw as a most unique and interesting “place.” It is above and away from the bustle of the sidewalks and streets. It provides a unique view of the city. And it is an opportunity to provide new open space without demolishing any buildings to create it.

The Friends of the High Line and others advocated for the vision of a park for years. Finally, it has become a reality, as the first segment opens.

For more information about the park, the history of the High Line, and great photographs and videos, visit the Friends of the High Line at the website: http://www.thehighline.org/ .

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.