|
Metairie Railroad Corridor Study Summary
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Federal Railroad Administration wishes to thank CONSAD/RailLease and all those Federal, State, and local officials who participated in this study for their cooperation, assistance, and support. In addition, the cooperation and assistance of the railroads, especially those members of the Railroad Technical Advisory Committee, are greatly appreciated. Moreover, the residents of Jefferson and surrounding parishes, especially those who participated in the focus group discussions, must also be thanked for their time and efforts. Numerous other private companies who contributed their time and knowledge are also to be thanked.
Railroad Names and Abbreviations
Name Abbreviation
CSX Transportation Company CSX
Burlington Northern/Atchison Santa Fe BN/ATSF
Illinois Central Railroad IC
Kansas City Southern Railway Company KCS
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company LN
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company MP
New Orleans Public Belt Railroad NOPB
New Orleans Terminal Railroad Company NOT
New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal NOUPT
Norfolk Southern Railroad NS
Southern Pacific Transportation Company SP
Union Pacific Railroad UP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study has been prepared in response to the conference committee report accompanying the DOT Appropriations Act of 1995, which included direction and funding to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Ato conduct a comprehensive study of problems in the Old Metairie railroad corridor in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes in Louisiana.@ The FRA was directed to: A(1) identify safety problems and potential solutions regarding the transportation of hazardous materials along the corridor; (2) identify problems and potential solutions to vehicular traffic congestion along the corridor; (3) examine the railroad-community conflicts in the area; and (4) identify potential alternative track relocations.@ The study was to include Aagency recommendations as well as cost and schedule estimates for resolving these problems.@
This study describes and evaluates alternatives for resolving the railroad-community conflicts in the Old Metairie railroad corridor, also known as the ABack Belt@. The rail-community conflicts which are specifically addressed include:
! Highway grade-crossing delays and accident risks;
! Train noise, horn-sounding, and vibration in residential areas;
! Risk of hazardous materials releases; and
! Stormwater flooding due to rail right-of-way location.
The railroad right-of-way and eight grade crossings also slow traffic movements, increase highway congestion, and slow emergency evacuations during hurricanes and floods. Metairie residents cite the impacts that the railroad operations have had on their lives, their safety, and their property.
The Metairie rail corridor provides a critical connecting link in the national rail system allowing western and eastern railroads to interchange trains and provide timely through movements of intermodal and land bridge traffic. As a key component in the national, state, and regional transportation infrastructure, timely movement of freight over the Back Belt benefits and impacts the local,regional, state, and U.S. economy.
The alternatives considered for alleviating the railroad-community conflicts include:
! Relocating the railroad corridor by rebuilding the I-10 Carrollton Avenue interchange at an estimated capital cost of $57 million; or relocating the corridor North of Lake Pontchartrain at capital costs ranging from $90 to $153 million; and
! A variety of short-term, in-place rail operational changes, involving a minimum to moderate amount of capital investment.
When selected in appropriate combination, their implementation will resolve the rail-community conflicts and improve freight rail service and operations in the region. The remainder of this Executive Summary describes these alternatives and their associated costs and benefits.
The CONSAD/RailLease study team reviewed the fifty year evolution of the rail-community conflicts and the steps taken to alleviate them. The study team focused on the following types of alternatives:
! Those which would gain the support of many organizations and entities; i.e., would be consensus alternatives;
! Those which had never been considered in detail; and
! Those which had been considered before, but which were now cast in a new light because of changed circumstances.
The study team considered various approaches to bringing about a consensus among residential groups, government entities, and the railroads. The team gave considerable attention to the possible responses and positions with respect to the rail-community conflicts and to the various possible alternatives.
A finding from this effort was that consensus could be achieved on broad principles, such as the need for resident involvement in planning decisions. However, a long-term community orientation, education, and planning process is needed in order to gain a consensus on the implementation of specific strategies. That is, consensus will not emerge automatically for the alternatives proposed. Coalitions among community groups and government entities, including public-private coalitions for project financing, will require significant effort to build. Furthermore, the alternatives, in order to be successfully implemented, will require support from a large portion of the region's populace and institutions. No single group or parish will be successful acting alone.
The present study has identified and evaluated both long term relocation alternatives and short term railroad operating changes that can reduce grade crossing delays, accidents, noise, vibration, and exposure to hazardous materials experienced by Metairie and other Jefferson Parish residents. AIn-place@ alternatives mean that rail movements through Metairie would continue but that the adverse impacts of these movements would be lessened. The other type of alternative, called Arelocation@, means that the Back Belt would be completely closed and train movements would follow another route. Some of the alternatives, involving the NOPB or the rerouting of some traffic to other gateways, are Apartial relocation@ alternatives because some of the train traffic would remain on the Back Belt.
The alternatives selected for detailed analysis, and their prospective benefits and costs, are discussed below. Table ES.1, presented on pages 5 and 6, summarizes the in-place alternatives. Table ES.2, presented on pages 7, 8, and 9, summarizes the relocation alternatives in Section III.2 and the partial relocation alternatives in Section III.3.
III.1 In-place Alternatives
III.1.1 Change Railroad Operations and Other Short-term Improvements
The four alternatives in this group require little or no new capital. They are difficult to cost precisely because none of the companies have detailed plans for schedule or operations changes. However, these alternatives would significantly improve the grade crossing delay situation in Metairie and Shrewsbury.
Revise Train Schedules to Avoid Rush Hours
Schedule changes, which might require the expansion of yard trackage for staging and holding, offer the prospect of significantly reducing grade crossing blockages and grade crossing accident potentials. The benefits of rescheduling trains to times when there is little highway traffic at grade crossings would be substantial in terms of time saved by drivers and passengers. Using models which calculate the accumulated time saved and the value of the time saved, the study team found that rescheduling trains to the night time hours (10PM to 6AM) would save motorists about $22 million (discounted to the present), in vehicle operating costs and the value of time saved over a 25 year period.
However, presently, there is no master train schedule governing train operating movements over the Back Belt. In other words, alleviating railroad-community conflicts through Aschedule changes@ implies that the railroads cooperatively develop a joint schedule or, failing that, establish a new coordinating entity to institute an overall multi-company schedule.
Decrease Train Transit Time
Through the Corridor
The average time required for trains to transit the Metairie corridor can be reduced by constructing shallower turnouts and by improving the Metairie Road crossover and the East Bridge Junction, discussed in Section III.3.1, below. These changes will eliminate train braking and acceleration at each crossover and allow trains to maintain the full 20 miles per hour speed limit over the Back Belt, rather than the current average of 12.5 mph. This will reduce rail operating costs, decrease train transit times through Metairie, and cut grade crossing blockage time.
Eliminate Train Stoppage on the Back Belt
The train stoppages of interest are related to the transfer of a train from the control of one railroad to the control of another. Seven rail companies operate in the region, including six major Class I railroads and the NOPB. Although interchanges among any of the seven can occur, the most common would be between the two eastern railroads (NS and CSX) and the four western and midwestern railroads (IC, KCS, SP, and UP).
These interchanges require not only crew changes, but also inspections. Any irregularity can cause an extended stoppage of several hours, during which time the train could be blocking one or more grade crossings.
Elimination of stoppages would require thorough inspections before the trains come to the interchange point and/or relocation of these interchange points so that interchanges occur at points well separated from grade crossings and from points where stoppage can cause chain-reaction delays of succeeding trains. In the constricted and congested New Orleans gateway region, such points are few in number.
Reduce Number of Trains by Train
Consolidation or Rerouting
This alternative could be achieved by one of two strategies:
1. Increase the length of trains so that the total number of trains is reduced.
2. Reroute some of the trains through Baton Rouge or other gateways:
a. This alternative would be facilitated by the merger of two or more of the following four railroads: UP, SP, IC, and KCS, as an example. Such a merger would provide more flexibility in train consolidation.
b. Another merger possibility would involve either the NS or CSX with one of the other four railroads. This would create a transcontinental rail company with greater flexibility in choosing gateways.
c. The third alternative would involve the railroads establishing a joint bilateral agreement to reroute traffic through other gateways.
III.1.2 Improve Grade Crossing Protection
as a Possible Alternative to Sounding
Train Horns
According to the FRA Office of Safety, approximately 165 communities in the United States maintain local train horn sounding bans, most of which are 24-hour bans. These bans affect approximately 1,400 of the 167,000 public highway-rail crossings. Informal restrictions on the use of train horns exist in additional communities. On average, FRA estimates that train horn sounding bans drive up the risk of a crossing accident by approximately 84 percent.
Since 1992, when remaining crossings in Metairie were equipped with automated warning systems (flashing lights and gates), trains have been prohibited from routinely sounding their air horns on their approach to highway-rail crossings. The existing ban is viewed as having significantly reduced the impact of rail operations on the quiet of the community, and the installation of automated warning devices helped to reduce the risk of crossing accidents.
In 1994, the Swift Rail Development Act was enacted, mandating that FRA require trains to use audible warnings when approaching grade crossings, preempting state and local laws. The legislation permits FRA to make exceptions where safety does not require the use of train horns or where supplemental safety measures have been instituted to compensate for the loss of the audible warning. Conventional warning systems such as flashing lights and gates (blocking only half the roadway) do not qualify as supplemental measures, since it was assumed that these measures have been employed to meet an existing safety need.
FRA has not yet proposed regulations to implement this statute, but expects to do so in 1997. Options under consideration for supplemental safety measures include four-quadrant gates, gates with median barriers, paired one-way streets, photo enforcement programs, and other law enforcement options combined with public awareness campaigns. FRA has indicated an interest in considering crossing safety strategies that take into consideration overall opportunities for risk reduction on rail corridors, including options that include consolidation of crossings with enhancement of warning systems at remaining crossings. Given the recent accident experience in Metairie, the generally good sight distances, and the existence of newer generation automated warning devices, the opportunities for making marginal improvements in crossing safety, while retaining train horn sounding bans, appear to be excellent.
III.1.3 Examine Present Economic
Incentives for Railroad Cooperation
Over the years of the Back Belt controversy, the railroad companies have taken some steps, such as removal of the old ALong Siding@ in 1988, which gave evidence that they were, to a degree, sympathetic to the residents' complaints. In addition, Jefferson Parish has, from time to time, created ordinances which were and are intended to pressure the railroads to better manage the movement of trains, with the objective of reducing grade crossing delays. However, interviews conducted in 1996 revealed that the Sheriff's Department is not enforcing the ordinances. Enforcement of the existing Parish ordinances, by the issuing of citations by the Sheriff's Department and by the prosecution of offenders by the district attorney, when trains block crossings for more than five minutes, can also be used as an incentive to bring about improvements.
III.1.4 Close and/or Separate Grade
Crossings
Large areas of both Orleans and Jefferson Parishes have already achieved complete separations of track and highway by overpasses or underpasses. However, in spite of extensive study and analysis since 1961, residents have rejected these solutions stating the rationale that they represent an increased permanence of the railroad's presence rather than a step towards eventual relocation.
III.2 Relocation Alternatives and
Variants
Relocation alternatives provide for the total diversion of all Back Belt traffic to another route. This diversion means that the Back Belt could be completely closed and reallocated to another use. This new use could be viewed by the community as either a benefit or a cost. Residents who want the Back Belt removed have taken the view that they will deal with the issues concerning the alternative uses of the land Awhen the time comes@.
III.2.1 Construct the Carrollton Curve
This alternative would most likely be the least expensive relocation alternative, in private and social costs, although significant construction would occur at the location of the present Carrollton Interchange on Interstate 10. The result of this alternative would be the establishment of a completely grade separated rail route, so that the net effect would be the complete alleviation of the delays and accident risks presently associated with the Back Belt.
The new route would use the existing rail corridor, except for the short distance of the curve itself, which would run under the interchange. The route would add all of the Back Belt traffic to the IC/NOUPT route through Orleans Parish. The residents of Jefferson Parish have favored this solution for over 40 years.
Table ES.1: Overview of Benefit Cost Factors For In-place Alternatives
Benefit Factors
Cost Factors
In-place
Alternatives
Time Frame for Implementing Alternative
Impact on Highway Traffic Delays
Highway and Grade Crossing Accidents
Impact on Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Impact on Land Use and Economic Development
Capital Costs1
Operating Costs
Other Cost Factors, Including Environmental
Primary Reference Section(s)
(1) Revise train schedules to avoid rush hours. Short Term Savings in highway traffic time delay could be $22 million over 25 year period (discounted to present). Rescheduling trains to low highway volume hours will probably reduce accidents. Direct exposure of residents to potential hazardous materials release is decreased. Increased space required at interchange yards for staging and holding. Increased yard trackage required for staging and holding. Could increase car (per diem) costs and, to the extent to which rescheduling of crews is not feasible, could increase crew costs. More trains running at night could motivate increased sound proofing of homes. Sections 5.1.1, 6.2.5, and 6.4; and Tables 6.9 and 6.28. (2) Decrease transit times of trains through the corridor by track improvements. Short Term Train speed increase will reduce grade crossing delay costs by $5.5 million over 25 year period (discounted to present). Increase in train speeds could make accidents more severe. As long as train speeds stay below approx. 20 mph, no significant change in potential release of hazardous materials would be expected. Increases in average train speed could increase the perceived danger from derailed cars and motivate property owners gradually to eliminate structures near tracks. Shallower turnouts must be built to allow higher operating speeds through the NOPB-IC crossing, and East Bridge Junction (EBJ) must be double-tracked (estimated at $4 million for EBJ in 1995 dollars). Slight crew cost savings. Also, steadier speeds should lead to substantial operating savings. Increased speeds will produce increased engine noise and, especially at the Carrollton Curve approach to Metairie Rd., increased wheel squeal. Sections 5.1.1 and 6.2.5; and Table 6.9. (3) Eliminate train stoppage on the Back Belt by changing interchange points, improving operations, and double tracking the East Bridge Junction. Short Term Reducing stops would be equivalent to increasing average train operating speeds. This could lead to highway traffic delay savings of $5.5 million over a 25 year period (discounted to present). Reducing stops would reduce grade crossing blockage time, and thus would reduce chances of vehicle-vehicle accidents. Reducing stops reduces exposure to hazardous materials. No effect. East Bridge Junction improvements are estimated to cost $4 million (in 1995 dollars). Reduction of train stops will reduce operating costs. Potentially eliminate need for additional locomotive and car inspections (at Central Ave.) Sections 5.1.1 and 6.2.5; and Table 6.9. (4) Reduce number of trains through Metairie by consolidation or rerouting of trains. Short Term Reduction of number of trains could lead to savings in highway traffic delays. Rail-highway accident potential may decrease as the number of trains and frequency of gate closings decreases. Increase in cars per train potentially increases possibility of a train accident, and if the additional cars contain hazardous materials, then the potential risk of a release would increase. Even if the probability of a train accident remains the same, any increase in the number of hazmat cars per train will increase the potential risk of a release, if an accident occurs. May need to lengthen Gentilly, Oliver, and Avondale receiving and departure tracks, and increase train make-up switching. May lead to an increase in make-up switching costs. Savings for railroads, but may need more locomotives; crew time savings. HPL Bridge coupler load situation limits train length. Section 5.1.1.
Table ES.1: Overview of Benefit Cost Factors For In-place Alternatives (continued)
Benefit Factors
Cost Factors
In-place
Alternatives
Time Frame for Implementing Alternative
Impact on Highway Traffic Delays
Highway and Grade Crossing Accidents
Impact on Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Impact on Land Use and Economic Development
Capital Costs1
Operating Costs
Other Cost Factors, Including Environmental
Primary Reference Section(s)
(5) Improve grade crossing protection as a possible alternative to sounding train horns. Short to Medium Term No effect. This alternative directly relates to safety. It implies that train-auto accidents will be 99% eliminated; auto-auto accidents will be reduced. A grade crossing accident could cause a derailment. Thus, risk of hazardous materials release is potentially reduced by this alternative. Improved safety should increase neighborhood land values. An alternative to sounding horns for the community. To convert existing grade crossing with barriers to new design is estimated at $49,400 per single track crossing. Small increase in maintenance and operating costs of grade crossing devices at some crossings. Redesigning streets and street intersections will cause some inconvenience until residents develop new traffic patterns. Section 5.1.2; and Appendices B and I. (6) Examine present economic incentives for railroad cooperation. Short to Medium Term Could potentially achieve savings from highway delay reductions as identified above for Alternative 1. Optimal scheduling would reduce stops and optimize operating speeds. Depends on how much the incentives affect schedules; see Alternative 1, above. Optimal scheduling would reduce blockage and probability of accidents. Depends on how the incentives change schedules; possibly no effect or impacts described in Alternative 1. Reduced train delays and stops would reduce exposure. Could increase housing values by a small amount. Overall improved rail service in region. No effect. Depends on how much the schedules are changed. Implementing master schedule would involve significant one-time costs. Some permanent personnel costs. An increase in economic incentives would result in additional administrative and other costs, but would be offset by additional revenues from fine collection. Section 5.1.4. (7) Close and/or separate grade crossings. Short to Medium Term Total elimination of delay by grade separation at all grade crossings would save $42.3 million from 1998 through 2020 (discounted to present). However, closing grade crossings would save the delay which occurs there, but potentially, the delay would be shifted to some other location. Both separation and closing would eliminate highway-rail accidents at the crossings. Potentially, all highway accidents related to the existence of the crossings would also be eliminated. Rail-highway accidents can potentially cause derailments, and grade crossing separations or closings can reduce the potential for hazmat releases which can result from these derailments. The grade separation structures will change residential and commercial land use pattern, and street patterns, including the elimination of substantial amounts of residential property at some locations. Overall, local economy should improve because of improved safety and traffic flow. Capital costs for grade separations were previously estimated in FHWA (1988) for some crossings; however, these data are out of date due to changes in railroad technology. Maintenance costs would be in regular, street maintenance budget. Temporary inconvenience of motorists as described in Alternative 5, above. Sections 5.1.3, 6.2.5, and 6.4; Tables 6.8 and 6.28; Appendix I; and the 1988 FHWA report.
1 Represents undiscounted total construction costs.
Table ES.2: Overview of Benefit Cost Factors For Relocation Alternatives
Benefit Factors
Cost Factors
Relocation and Partial Relocation Alternatives
Time Frame for Implementing Alternative
Impact on Highway Traffic Delays
Highway and Grade Crossing Accidents
Impact on Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Impact on Land Use and Economic Development
Capital Costs1
Operating Costs2
Other Cost Factors, Including Environmental
Primary Reference Section(s)
(1) Construct the Carrollton Curve and reroute all rail traffic from the Back Belt. Medium Term The new route would be totally grade separated, thus saving all of the costs of the 8 crossings analyzed. Time delay costs are $34.3 million over 20 years (discounted to present). Elimination of train related accidents on the Back Belt. Increases potential exposure of I-10 travelers and residents on streets abutting or in the proximity of I-10, while decreasing potential exposure of Back Belt residents. Back Belt corridor could become available for rezoning and redevelopment. Increased rail traffic on the NOUPT/IC route would impact on land values. $57 million (1995 dollars). Increased operating costs for railroads over the 1.2 mile longer route could be offset by smoother operations, scheduling improvements, reduced accident costs, and reduced grade crossing maintenance. Railroads would gain benefits from land redevelopment of old Back Belt corridor. Sections 5.1.5, 5.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.5, 6.3.4.5, and 6.4; Appendix M; and Tables 6.8 and 6.28. (2) Northern Routes: Mississippi Central (Baton Rouge-Hammond-Brookhaven-Hattiesburg-Mobile). Medium to Long Term Uses existing or recently abandoned routes with mostly low highway traffic grade crossings. Assume small net reduction or no change in accidents. This alternative would provide net reduction of exposure in both MS and LA. Some potential for commuter rail, e.g., Hattiesburg-Mobile. Note: corridor between Hattiesburg and Silver Hill would be reestablished. $90 million (1995 dollars) Rail operating costs are a function of distance. The SP/CSX route will increase by 69 miles, or 17% over present Beaumont to Mobile distance. The SP/NS route will increase by 3 miles over the present Beaumont to Hattiesburg route. Other cost factors, such as interchange and labor costs, will not necessarily increase as much. Crew time and other operating costs will depend on yard and interchange factors. This route will significantly reroute hazardous materials away from coastal zones. Sections 5.1.6, 6.1.2, and 6.3.4.5; and Appendix N. (3) Northern Routes: Washington Parish (Baton Rouge-Hammond-Amite City-Rio-Ansley-Mobile). Medium to Long Term This is a rural, low population density route. Assume almost 100% net reduction in highway traffic delay. The Washington Parish portion of this route is a rural, low population density route. If most new crossings are separated , assume net reduction, or no change, in accidents. Net gain in exposure for Mississippi because of additional miles in Pearl River and Hancock Counties. Assume Washington Parish (and possibly some counties in Mississippi) would base economic development on new rail corridor. Route could also be used for commuting from Franklinton to Baton Rouge. $147.2 million (1995 dollars) The SP/CSX route will increase by 8 miles, or 2%, over the present Beaumont-Mobile route. The SP/NS route will decrease by 22 miles, or 6%, below the present Beaumont-Hattiesburg route. Same as above. Also , a possible variant of this route, the Rio-Mobile direct route, potentially reduces ecological risk by eliminating the coastal Ansley-Pascagoula route. Sections 5.1.6, 6.1.2, and 6.3.4.5; and Appendix N. (4) Northern Routes: Mid-St. Tammany Parish: variant 1 uses I-10/I-12 corridor to cross Pearl River; variant 2 uses NS Bridge. Medium to Long Term Complete removal of rail traffic from Back Belt is assumed, but 34 new crossings, with 8 requiring gates, would be constructed in St. Tammany Parish. No further accidents would occur in Metairie, but some would occur in St. Tammany. This alternative would reduce the exposure of persons in the NO region, but increase the exposure of persons in the Hancock County, MS region. The rail route proposed would not be intended to serve local industries. Also it would not be intended for passenger rail travel. But these features could be added. For variant 1, $153.3 million (1995 dollars). For variant 2, $99.1 to $103.4 million (1995 dollars). The SP/CSX route will decrease 18 miles, or 4%, below the present Beaumont to Mobile route. The SP/NS route will decrease by 28 miles, or 7%, below the present Beaumont to Hattiesburg route. Same as above. Sections 5.1.6, 6.1.2, and 6.3.4.5; and Appendix N.
Table ES.2: Overview of Benefit Cost Factors For Relocation Alternatives (continued)
Benefit Factors
Cost Factors
Relocation and Partial Relocation Alternatives
Time Frame for Implementing Alternative
Impact on Highway Traffic Delays
Highway and Grade Crossing Accidents
Impact on Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Impact on Land Use and Economic Development
Capital Costs1
Operating Costs2
Other Cost Factors, Including Environmental
Primary Reference Section(s)
(5) Southern Route: New Mississippi River Bridge (Route 47 and I-510 Extension) Long Term This alternative could potentially be built with no new at-grade crossings, but some existing crossings would experience significantly increased blocking. Assume small net increase in delays, unless new separations are constructed. Same problem as with grade crossing delays. Assume small net increase in accidents, unless new separations are constructed. This alternative would have no effect on residents in MS, but would slightly increase exposure of residents in LA. However, more detailed analysis is needed because this increase was based on average parish population density. This alternative would have very positive impact on economic development of the West Bank, especially Plaquemines Parish. $653 million (1995 dollars) The SP/CSX route will decrease 9 miles, or 2%, below the present Beaumont to Mobile route. The SP/NS route will decrease by 22 miles, or 6%, below the present Beaumont to Hattiesburg route. Operating costs of the new bridge would be incurred. However, no significant change in environmental exposure would be expected. Sections 5.1.7, 6.1.3, and 6.3.4.5. (6) Use NOPB river front route-run 5 trains per day, mostly westbound. Short to Medium Term This alternative would reduce traffic delays in Metairie, but increase them on the grade crossings in the French Quarter and waterfront. Substantial crossing protection improvements or grade separations on the NOPB would be required. The average population density in Orleans Parish (NOPB) is approximately twice that of Jefferson Parish (Back Belt). Improvements of safety along the NOPB would facilitate economic development. About $49,400 per crossing for highest level, median barrier protection. The NOPB is about 10 miles longer than the Back Belt, but access to the H. P. Long Bridge is easier than from the Back Belt and overall transit time might be about the same. NOPB trackage rights fees, but these could be set to compete with NS-Back Belt. Sections 5.1.9, 6.2.5, and 6.4; Tables 6.9 and 6.28; and Appendices B and K.1. (7) Improve East Bridge Junction - add double track and better control to smooth operations through bottleneck. Short to Medium Term All rail traffic would move more smoothly over the Back Belt and also the IC tracks from St. Charles Parish. Thus, highway traffic delays in both areas would be reduced. Overall reduced transit times for trains would improve safety. Reduced stops and train delays would reduce exposure time. Improved overall train operations would reduce shippers' costs, and railroads might be able to reduce the size of yards. $4 million (1995 dollars) Should be reduced. Risk factors for railroad companies because control could still be arbitrarily biased. Sections 5.1.9 and 6.2.5; and Table 6.9. (8) Create Terminal Switching Carrier (TSC) - incorporate, designate or otherwise institute TSC to coordinate all rail movements in NO region. Short to Medium Term Improved scheduling and reduction of train delays would reduce highway traffic delay. Improved scheduling would improve safety. Same as above. Same as above. If NOPB is used, then additional capital would be very small. Costs would be paid by the involved railroads, and would probably be less than what they pay now since the TSC would be non-profit. Labor agreements would be complicated by unusual operating procedures (as versus line-haul railroad) but might be cheaper. Sections 5.1.9, 6.2.5, and 6.4; and Tables 6.9 and 6.28.
Table ES.2: Overview of Benefit Cost Factors For Relocation Alternatives (continued)
Benefit Factors
Cost Factors
Relocation and Partial Relocation Alternatives
Time Frame for Implementing Alternative
Impact on Highway Traffic Delays
Highway and Grade Crossing Accidents
Impact on Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Impact on Land Use and Economic Development
Capital Costs1
Operating Costs2
Other Cost Factors, Including Environmental
Primary Reference Section(s)
(9) Improve Huey P. Long Bridge Operations - reduce stops and delays by changing maintenance schedule. Short to Medium Term Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Note that a reduction of time for trains being on the bridge would reduce the risk of very serious dispersion of hazardous materials. Same as above. Although various capital improvements have been suggested, none has shown to be essential to the improvement of operations. Presently, the bridge maintenance is mostly paid by the UP. This cost could be shifted to a TSC (see Alternative 8, above). Bridge structure monitoring is done under contract. Section 5.1.9; and Appendices G and K.1. (10) Redirect hazardous materials traffic to other gateways/routes. Medium to Long Term The number of hazmat rail cars crossing the Back Belt is about 19% of all cars, but the amount of pass-through tonnage available for rerouting to other gateways is estimated at 38%. These percentages imply the possible reduction of about 5 cars per train per day, or possibly the equivalent of one train per day. Elimination of one train per day would contribute slightly to the flexibility in scheduling trains to avoid rush hours. Improved scheduling of trains would improve safety (see Alternative 8, above). This alternative would not be feasible unless a net reduction in exposure could be achieved. To implement this alternative would require a comparative exposure analysis for each gateway. Shifting a large percentage of rail car traffic to another gateway would have significant implications for rail yard size and other economic factors such as yard employment and maintenance. Any capital cost impacts from this alternative would presumably occur at the alternative gateways. Operating cost changes resulting from rerouting would be a function of changes in average distances. Because of requirements for placement of hazmat cars within a train, rerouting of such cars would reduce operating costs in the make-up yards. In routing hazmat rail traffic, the natural environment should be another consideration, after population exposure. The New Orleans region has a sensitive natural environment, including river basins, wetlands, and coastal zones. Sections 5.1.8 and 6.3; and Tables 6.20 and 6.22.
1 Represents undiscounted total construction costs.
2 All mileages are as shown on the Rand-McNally Handy Railroad Map, 8 Rand-McNally Company, Chicago.
Construction of a new ground level track connection underneath the Carrollton Interchange is blocked by the interchange ramps. Thus, implementing this relocation alternative would require the elevation, relocation, and reconstruction of eight of the Carrollton Interchange highway ramps, the extension of the western elevated portion of the Airline Highway railroad overpass, the construction of an 8.75 degree curved single track underneath the Carrollton Interchange, and the elevation of two Palmetto Avenue overpasses that lie on the western approach to the interchange. The total undiscounted construction costs (in 1995 dollars) are estimated at $57 million.
III.2.2 Relocate the Rail Corridor to North of
Lake Pontchartrain
This group of northern route alternatives would use IC tracks as a link across Livingston Parish and would reroute all of the Back Belt traffic across the Mississippi River bridge in Baton Rouge. The expanded use of this bridge, and its approaches, must be investigated further, but this is a corridor which is presently in use, including the bridge and the track between Baton Rouge and Hammond. The new links in these alternatives are all east of Hammond (Tangipahoa Parish)
Mississippi Central Route Alternative
The Mississippi Central route alternative is the most northern of the Baton Rouge bridge alternatives and gives an advantage to the NS traffic over the CSX traffic. The eastbound traffic would follow a corridor north from Hammond to Brookhaven, MS, then east over a partially abandoned but still available corridor to Hattiesburg, and then over a presently used corridor into Mobile, for the CSX traffic. The NS traffic would proceed north from Hattiesburg on the extension of the same corridor (New Orleans-Slidell-Hattiesburg-Meridian) which it presently uses.
This alternative requires the replacement of abandoned track, including several bridges, between Hattiesburg and Silver Hill. The NS has estimated the total undiscounted construction costs of this replacement (in 1995 dollars) to be $90 million, which is the lowest estimated cost of the three North of Lake Pontchartrain alternatives analyzed. The route is also attractive from a hazardous materials and ecological view, since CSX traffic, which presently moves along the coast from Mobile to New Orleans, would avoid coastal wetlands entirely.
Washington Parish Route Alternative and Variant
Unlike those in St. Tammany Parish, the residents of Washington Parish are aware of the economic potential of their region, and many would welcome the development of a new railroad corridor if it would open the possibility of local industrial service.
This alternative would be less circuitous for both NS and CSX traffic because, instead of traffic moving north from Hammond to Brookhaven, traffic would turn east at Amite City, LA and use a to-be-constructed new corridor across the parish to a point near Franklinton. Traffic would then be routed over an abandoned but available corridor southeast to a point near Picayune, MS.
At Picayune, NS traffic would join the same corridor described above, while CSX traffic would either continue southeast direct to Mobile, a route which would require a 104-mile new corridor, or turn south toward the existing CSX coastal route, which it would join near Ansley, MS.
The total undiscounted construction costs of the Washington Parish route (in 1995 dollars) are estimated at $147.2 million. This would be the cost of the Picayune-Ansley variant for the CSX. Costs were not derived for the Mobile-direct route which, because of the new corridor required, would be significantly more expensive. However, this route would be much more attractive environmentally, because it would avoid, completely, both the densely populated coastal route and the cities of Hattiesburg and Brookhaven.
Mid-St. Tammany Route Alternative and Variant
For this alternative, a new corridor would be required which would turn northeast from Hammond (Tangipahoa Parish) and would then turn east and cross the northern part of St. Tammany Parish, passing north of Covington. At the eastern edge of St. Tammany, the new corridor would join an abandoned IC corridor and proceed south toward Slidell.
One variant of this route would use the existing Interstate 10 corridor as a location for new bridges which would be needed to cross the three branches of the Pearl River. The other variant would use existing NS corridor and bridges. The total undiscounted construction costs of the I-10 bridge variant (in 1995 dollars) would be $153.3 million. The total undiscounted construction costs of the NS bridge variant (in 1995 dollars) are estimated at either $99.1 or $103.4 million, depending on whether the track passes to the west or to the east of the NASA Stennis Test Facility.
This Mid-St. Tammany alternative, using the NS bridge variant, has a cost in the vicinity of the Mississippi Central route alternative described above, while the I-10 bridge variant is in the cost category of the Washington Parish route alternative described above. However, all of these alternatives are different both in terms of hazardous material exposure, environmental risks, and total operating distances (see Table ES.2).
III.2.3 New Mississippi River
Bridge Alternative
The Mississippi River winds south from Baton Rouge, and actually turns mostly east as it approaches New Orleans. Thus, the area across the river from New Orleans is south of the city, but is called the AWest Bank@ by residents. The area is highly industrialized and has its own existing rail corridors. However, any eastbound rail shipments originating on the West Bank must proceed west to cross the Huey P. Long Bridge, then east again over the Back Belt, and either through the Oliver or the Gentilly Yards. A new rail bridge over the river somewhere east of New Orleans would simplify this route, open the West Bank for additional industry, and provide a new route for commuter rail service. Such a bridge would be extremely expensive, however, depending on the actual location, the requirements of the Coast Guard which is responsible for navigation on the river, and technical design. If such a bridge were constructed, rail traffic crossing it from the West Bank would have the option of four kinds of service: proceeding into Gentilly or Oliver Yards, moving directly onto the CSX line to Mobile, moving directly onto the NS line to Slidell, or moving onto the NOPB for access to the New Orleans port facilities.
Construction of these access routes would be expensive. These connections alone are estimated to cost (in 1995 dollars) $76 million, and the bridge would cost about $577 million, for a total undiscounted construction cost of about $653 million. If the bridge, as eventually designed, did cost that amount, it would only be justifiable in terms of significant economic development, expansion of port volume, reduction of rail congestion on the East Bank, closing of the Back Belt, reduction of traffic and accident risk on the Huey P. Long Bridge, and reduction of environmental risks west of New Orleans in the Bonnet Carre and Atchafalaya regions. As noted, such a bridge would also open the possibility of commuter rail travel from suburban areas on the West Bank.
III.3 Partial Relocation Alternatives
III.3.1 Utilize the New Orleans Public Belt
Railroad Corridor
The NOPB corridor is available, and has always been available, as a viable alternative to the Back Belt. Known as the Ariver front route@, or the Front Belt, rail companies have tried to avoid using this corridor in recent years. However, the rail traffic volume and the related congestion on the Back Belt should cause them to reconsider its potential.
This corridor connects into NS and CSX facilities in the northeast part of Orleans Parish, and travels into Jefferson Parish in the west. The Huey P. Long Bridge, owned by New Orleans, is nominally the property of the NOPB.
Use the NOPB through Orleans Parish
Prior to 1984, the UP ran four to five trains per day over the Front Belt. Reducing the number of trains now transiting the Back Belt by this number would make a very large difference in the highway traffic delays at Back Belt grade crossings. In other words, the traffic over the Back Belt is at a level where the time and operating constraints prohibit flexibility in operations and scheduling. A difference of four or five trains per 24 hours would be significant.
Improve the East Bridge Junction Connecting
the Front Belt with the Huey P. Long Bridge
The point where the Front Belt and the Back Belt merge as they both approach the Huey P. Long Bridge is called the East Bridge Junction, and several other rail routes merge at that point also. The East Bridge Junction is well known as a bottleneck for rail traffic in the region. Various plans have been devised to resolve the bottleneck, yet these plans have not been implemented either by one or more of the rail companies or by a public agency. The total undiscounted construction costs (in 1995 dollars) are estimated at $4 million.
The NOPB tracks approaching the bridge from the east do not, in fact, actually transit the bottleneck. When approaching the bridge from the east, a separate track is used which bypasses the East Bridge Junction, allowing traffic to move directly onto the bridge even though the Junction may be blocked. This arrangement provides an advantage to the Front Belt trains which may outweigh the fact that it is 10 miles longer than the Back Belt, and that train operating speeds on it may be a few miles per hour slower.
Create a Terminal Switching Carrier
The Front Belt corridor is owned by the NOPB, which is also an operating railroad owned by New Orleans, but with authority from Louisiana to own and operate rail and bridge facilities in the New Orleans area. The NOPB could become a terminal switching carrier (TSC) for the New Orleans Gateway. This arrangement would mean that major rail companies would not transit the Back Belt themselves; instead, their freight cars would be moved by the TSC. The choice of the Front Belt or the Back Belt would be made by the TSC, and operations problems of the major rail companies would not spill over onto the Back Belt, the Front Belt, the East Bridge Junction, or the Huey P. Long Bridge.
Improve the Huey P. Long Bridge
Maintenance Schedules
The Huey P. Long Bridge is the longest and highest steel railroad bridge in the United States, and it also carries four lanes of highway traffic. Maintenance on the bridge is performed on a year round, 40 hours per week basis. This schedule has become institutionalized to the point that consultants retained to review maintenance practices stated that attempting to reduce the on-bridge maintenance activities below a four-day schedule would raise personnel management problems.
The on-bridge maintenance requires that one of the two rail tracks be closed. This has caused complaints from the rail companies, thus adding one more complication to the operational situation described in Section III.1.1, above. Presumably, if operational difficulties become so disruptive that the rail companies begin to notice significant revenue or profit reductions, one or more of the above strategies will be implemented.
III.3.2 Relocate Traffic, Especially
Hazardous Materials, to Other
Gateways
The control of the routing of hazardous materials by public agencies, especially materials carried by trucks, has gained wide acceptance both by carriers and by shippers. However, such control has not become widely applied to rail companies. Instead, some voluntary adjustment of routes by shippers has occurred. Given these trends, and the very high volumes of hazardous materials carried by rail in the New Orleans region (an estimated 8.2 million tons in 1994), it is likely that some legal pressure will come to bear on shippers, rail companies, or both.
Moreover, results of interviews with rail company officials suggest that they have substantial flexibility in choosing gateways, and that the relative advantages and disadvantages of a gateway could easily shift. Under these conditions, rail companies might well consider shifting some traffic, especially hazardous materials cars, to another gateway, assuming none of the relocation alternatives described above has come into existence.
The railroad-community conflicts in the New Orleans region, and especially in the Old Metairie neighborhood of Jefferson Parish, arise from two underlying problems:
! Growth in the region has led to highway congestion, land use competition, and environmental situations and risks which are perceived to result from the existing rail operations; and
! Rail operations in the region have reached a level where yard switching, interchange, and technologic constraints are limiting the flexibility of the rail companies, and are also limiting their choices in responding to the community conflicts.
A series of alternatives were identified which would address both of these underlying problems. The railroads and governmental organizations involved in the corridor are faced with a choice among two broad categories of alternatives:
! Those involving the relocation of the railroad traffic; and
! Those which would leave the traffic in place but reduce the impact on the community.
The relocation alternatives are, understandably, most favored by the community. However, they are not without potential impacts, though generally lesser, on other interests and tend to cost more than the in-place alternatives. Of these, one that should be given serious consideration is relocating rail traffic to an existing grade separated alignment on NOUPT trackage and rebuilding the I-10/Carrollton Avenue interchange at a cost of $57 million.
Of the in-place alternatives, the only one that would eliminate the principal community grievance -- road traffic delays at grade crossings -- would be the complete grade separation of all eight crossings. However, there appears to be significant community opposition, significant capital cost associated with this approach, as well as concerns about the feasibility of grade separations at all eight crossings. On the other hand, providing significantly improved crossing protection would cost less, provide significant safety benefits and, at the same time, provide an alternative to locomotive horn sounding (another community grievance) consistent with FRA regulations. While this would not solve the road traffic delay problem, this problem could be mitigated by a number of other in-place alternatives involving operational and physical changes that could be implemented with the cooperation of the railroads.
However, the results of focus group sessions and interviews did not provide a clear indication of exactly how residents would respond to the implementation of any given alternative. In other words, broad consensus on specific alternative strategies was not found by the study team.
In light of this condition, a period of community orientation and discussion is likely to be needed. This type of activity would help to foster the inter-parish and regional coalitions which will be required to implement the possible alternatives. No one parish or activist group will succeed in the type of program needed.
Finally, there are at least two factors which fully justify the national attention to, and the coordination of, possible developments in the New Orleans region. These are:
! The role of east-west gateways in the current rail freight system, and the possible role that control of these gateways will have in the various merger negotiations likely to develop in the near future; and
! The continued eminence of the south central region of the Unites States in the production and shipment of hazardous materials, as well as the continued high possibility of a severe hazardous materials incident, a possibility which must be viewed in conjunction with the high population densities along the entire Gulf coast and the environmental sensitivity of the coastal areas.
For further information, contact:
Dr. Wilbur A. Steger
CONSAD Research Corporation
121 North Highland Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206
Phone: (412) 363-5500
Facsimile: (412) 363-5509
E-Mail: crc@nauticom.net
Web: http://www.nauticom.net/users/crc
Mr. Ralph G. Kennedy
RailLease Inc.
13700 Veterans Memorial Drive
Houston, Texas 77066
Phone: (713) 444-2958
E-Mail: RGKIII@aol.com
(acknowle.html)
