Cape Flyer Ridership Substantial

Crossing the Cape Cod Canal Rail Bridge

Propelled by good weather and the legendary long traffic jams at the only two roadway bridges into Cape Cod, the state-funded Cape Flyer ridership is somewhat exceeding expe-tations, as re-ported in a Boston Globe article.   In my initial post about this train, the Cape Cod Flyer represents the return of direct Boston to Hyannis service after 54 years.

As reported by the Globe:

Sunday’s 25-mile line of vehicles creeping across the Sagamore Bridge may go down as one the worst-ever Cape Cod traffic nightmares, but it also served as a free advertisement for a less stressful mode of transportation: the CapeFlyer weekend train service between Boston and Hyannis, which still has plenty of room for passengers.

Cape Flyer in Barnstable.  Photo by
Doug Scott

To anyone who has returned from the Cape on a Sunday night, this is not news, it's just what it takes to go to the Cape.  The savvy travelers will drive back early on Monday morning.  The more savvy travelers are shifting to the train.

As reported in the Globe, the cool, cloudy weather in June resulted in poor ridership.  But July brought the heat and, with the Cape beaches on their mind, the riders came.  Continued strong ridership may keep the service running into the fall, after the currently scheduled last trips on Labor Day weekend.

Accomodations:  While made up of commuter rail equipment, the train includes some features not found on all trains, including:

• Onboard concessions* , not quite an Amtrak cafe car, but beer and wine are served after the last "commuter stop" at Middleborough
• Free bike storage
• Free wi-fi
• Connections in Hyannis to ferries to Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket
• Bus connections at Buzzards Bay to Falmouth (by CCRTA)
• Bus connections at Hyannis to Orleans  (by CCRTA)

*Concession provided by Iowa Pacific, the holding company for the other Cape Cod railroads, namely Massachusetts Coastal Railroad (freight) and Cape Cod Central Railroad (passenger excursions and dinner trains)

We'll see how ridership holds up through July and August.  But, as a alternative to a 25-mile backup, the train is a no-brainer.

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.