Midwest Regional Rail Planning Study Railroad Webinar
September 1, 2017 Agenda
• Project Overview and Outcomes • Recap of Prior Workshops • Current Efforts • Technical Approach Summary • Workshop #3 Preview • Next Steps
2 Project Goal
Produce a 40-year framework for the Midwest intercity passenger rail network, including a prioritization of corridors and investment projects, a governance structure, and funding strategy.
3 Study Participants • Stakeholder Planning Group • Primary Midwest Rail Plan States (IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, WI) • Other stakeholders: host and operating railroads, MIPRC, MPOs and municipalities, advocacy groups • Complementary Jurisdictions: KY, NY (Buffalo), TN, PA (Pittsburgh), WV, Ontario 4 Stakeholder Engagement
1. Lead Stakeholders (States) 2. Other Planning Group Stakeholders 3. All other interested parties
5 Invited Railroads
Association of American Railroads (CREATE) METRA Amtrak Minnesota Commercial Railway Ann Arbor Railroad Northern Indiana Commuter Rail District Belt Railway of Chicago Northern Plains Railroad BNSF Northstar Commuter Rail Chicago, Fort Wayne and Eastern Railroad Norfolk Southern CN Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority CP Red River Valley & Western CSX Kansas City Terminal Railway Grand Elk Railroad Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis Great Lakes Central Railroad Twin Cities and Western Iowa Interstate Union Pacific Kansas City Southern Wisconsin & Southern
6 Relationship to Other Efforts
Midwest Regional Rail Planning Study Strategic Plan – Provides Framework for Investments • Sets service goals • Identifies Opportunities for Network Integration
Corridor State Rail Plans Implementation Plans
7 Goals and Principles Shared Regional Network Planning Goals
1) Maximize the utility of capital investment across the full range of potential markets and passenger types 2) Improve regional and intercity rail connections between small/mid-sized cities and large metropolitan areas; and among mid-sized cities within the Midwest 3) Advance corridors that maximize ridership (new) 4) Build toward the maximum viable service tier for corridors in network 5) Encourage capital investment in the short-term that is consistent with state’s plans and the long-term network vision 6) Support improvements that are mutually beneficial to passenger and freight rail (new) 7) Minimize the friction of passenger transfers 8) Progress regional networks that support national and urban needs (new) 9) Maximize economic opportunities from passenger rail corridor development (new) 10) Consider regional and intercity rail connections to major airports within the region
8 Study Outcomes
A Regional Intercity Passenger Rail Plan for the Midwest • Summary of existing rail and transportation plans • Assessment of existing and potential future passenger travel demand • Analysis of the performance of each corridor as a standalone investment and as part of a potential network • A high-level prioritization of Midwest corridors • A Midwest governance structure that originates primarily from the Midwest state DOTs • A benefit-cost analysis for the regional network • Lessons learned to provide comprehensive regional rail planning guidance
9 What the Study is NOT
• DOES NOT identify specific routes or alignments for corridors that make up the network (Corridors Defined by Major Markets) • DOES NOT come to conclusions regarding capacity or operating feasibility (High-Level Capital and O&M) • DOES NOT represent a commitment to implementing specific projects
10 Service Principles – Service Tiers
Minimum Top Reliability Target Speeds Other Common (On-time Corridors (mph) Characteristics Primary Markets Served Performance) Frequent service; dedi- cated tracks, except in Serving major metropolitan Core Express over 125 99% terminal areas; electric- centers powered Frequent service; dedi- Connecting mid-sized cated and shared tracks; urban areas with each Regional 90–125 95% electric- and diesel- other or with larger powered metropolitan areas Connecting mid-sized and Emerging/ smaller urban areas with Up to 90 Shared tracks 85% Feeder each other or with larger metropolitan areas
11 Technical Approach Three Elements of Integrated Rail Planning
Market Demand
Service Infrastructure Planning / Assessment Network Integration
12 CONNECT About
• Sketch planning tool originally developed in 2012 – recently updated • Estimates the overall performance of user-defined corridors and networks • Intended for use at the outset of the planning process • Enables the user to • Describe potential high-performance (HPR) network • Develop high-level service plans • Generate operational data • Estimate the financial and operational performance of the network
13 CONNECT How it works
Travel Demand/ Revenue
User Inputs / Network Default O&M Cost Performance Assumptions Outputs
Capital Cost
14 Technical Analysis – Flow Chart Stakeholder Input
Assess Existing CONNECT Demand Market Data Calibration / Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 1
Major Define CONNECT Cost Market Building Calibration / Analysis Blocks Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 2
Run Building Block Analysis
Clear Answers – Ambiguous Answers Draft Network – Need Stakeholder Elements Input Stakeholder Workshop 3
Stakeholder Draft Workshop 4 Network Final Network Vision Vision 15 End Result of Technical Efforts
• Proposed regional high-performance rail network including: • Corridors with proposed levels of service • Potential stations • Capital costs, O&M costs • Prioritized phasing
16 Southwest Study Outputs
Potential Core Express candidate corridors Recommended Network Connections between MSAs • San Diego–S.F./Oakland • Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas • Las Vegas–Salt Lake City • Las Vegas–Reno • Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix • Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix • San Diego–Phoenix
Potential Regional candidate corridors • S.F./Oakland–Reno • Phoenix–Tucson
Potential Feeder candidate corridors • Phoenix–Albuquerque
• Reno–Salt Lake City Source: Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study
17 Q&A Technical Analysis – Workshop #1 Stakeholder Input
Assess Existing CONNECT Demand Market Data Calibration / Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 1
19 Top Travel Markets Air
Fargo
Primary Minneapolis Major Toronto Regional Sioux Falls Other Madison Grand Rapids Buffalo Milwaukee Detroit Chicago Cleveland
Toledo Youngstown Omaha Des Moines Akron
Columbus Indianapolis Pittsburgh Annual Trips Dayton 150,000-199,999 Cincinnati Kansas City 200,000-499,999 St. Louis 500,000-749,999 Wichita Louisville Lexington 750,000-999,999
Greensboro >1,000,000 Fayetteville Knoxville Nashville Charlotte Oklahoma City Chattanooga Memphis Little Rock 20 Source: CONNECT Analysis Top 5 Existing Travel Pairs by Mode
Rank Auto Air Rail Total
1 Chicago - Milwaukee Chicago - Minneapolis/St. Paul Chicago - Milwaukee Chicago - Milwaukee
2 Chicago - St. Louis Chicago - Kansas City Chicago - St. Louis Chicago - St. Louis
3 Chicago - Detroit Chicago - Detroit Chicago - Detroit Chicago - Detroit
4 Chicago - Indianapolis Chicago - Nashville Kansas City - St. Louis Chicago - Indianapolis
5 Cincinnati - Dayton Chicago - Cleveland Chicago - Grand Rapids Cincinnati - Dayton
The six markets selected for analysis represent 2% of all CBSA-CBSA markets separated by 50 - 600 miles, but 22% of all auto trips and 28% of all air trips.
21 Major Market Analysis
Air Dominated Markets Chicago – Minneapolis > 300 Miles Chicago - Kansas City
Mixed (Auto/Air) Markets Chicago - Detroit 200 – 300 Miles Chicago – St Louis
Auto Dominated Markets Chicago – Milwaukee < 200 Miles Chicago – Indianapolis
Primary Major
Regional
Other
400 300 200 100 Miles
22 Technical Analysis – Workshop #2 Stakeholder Input
Assess Existing CONNECT Demand Market Data Calibration / Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 1
Major Define CONNECT Cost Market Building Calibration / Analysis Blocks Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 2
23 Major Market Analysis
2,500,000 1,200,000
Freq 2,000,000 MIN 1,000,000 KC 800,000 1,500,000 600,000 1,000,000 400,000
500,000 200,000
0 0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 P
I 3,000,000 2,000,000
S 2,500,000 DET 1,600,000 STL H
R 2,000,000 1,200,000 E 1,500,000 D
I 800,000 1,000,000 R 500,000 400,000 L I
A 0 0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 R
5,000,000 2,500,000 MIL IND 4,000,000 2,000,000
3,000,000 1,500,000
2,000,000 1,000,000
1,000,000 500,000
0 0 0:00 1:00 2:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 245:00 TRIP TIME Building Blocks Analysis
25 Building Blocks Analysis
Sample Key Questions – Southwest (Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska)
1) How does Kanas City service (either into St. Louis or directly connecting to Chicago) affect travel demand between St. Louis and Chicago? 2) What is the ridership value of a circumferential route connecting Champaign to Davenport with a hub at Bloomington? 3) Is the Quincy market best served by connecting to Galesburg or to Bloomington? 4) What is the travel demand between intermediate markets (i.e., market connections not to/from Chicago)? 5) What is the value of a Rockford alignment in serving Iowa markets? 6) What is the travel demand for markets beyond Kansas City (e.g., Topeka and Wichita) when there is a Core Express "gateway" at Kansas City? 7) For Core Express investment, which route maximizes ridership to the CHI-STL market (ridership between Chicago and St. Louis)? 8) For Core Express investment, which route maximizes ridership to the intermediate markets (excluding CHI-STL as an origin-destination pair)? 9) For Core Express investment, which route maximizes total corridor ridership? 10) For Core Express investment, which route maximizes non-corridor ridership (i.e. ridership with an origin or destination off the mainline route of CHI-STL)?
26 Initial Subnetwork Configuration – Southwest
Emerging
Regional
Core Express 27 Technical Analysis – Workshop #3 Stakeholder Input
Assess Existing CONNECT Demand Market Data Calibration / Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 1
Major Define CONNECT Cost Market Building Calibration / Analysis Blocks Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 2
Run Building Block Analysis
Clear Answers – Ambiguous Answers Draft Network – Need Stakeholder Elements Input
28 Workshop #3 Preview
• Question and answer matrix
• Market Analysis Sufficient
• Need Cost/Other Consideration
• Tradeoffs Exist
• Can't Answer with Current Information
29 Technical Analysis – Flow Chart Stakeholder Input
Assess Existing CONNECT Demand Market Data Calibration / Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 1
Major Define CONNECT Cost Market Building Calibration / Analysis Blocks Validation
Stakeholder Workshop 2
Run Building Block Analysis
Clear Answers – Ambiguous Answers – Draft Network Elements Need Stakeholder Input
Stakeholder Workshop 3
Stakeholder Draft Workshop 4 Network Final Network Vision Vision 30 End Results
Railroad input at this time is important as we move closer to the final network vision. • Network Outputs • Ridership • O&M Cost • Capital Cost • Cost Recovery Ratio • Benefit/Costs Analysis
• Final Network Vision • Geographies served • Service tiers • Prioritized phasing
31 Q&A Next Steps
• Complete initial runs of building block networks to include ridership and operating & maintenance cost considerations • Select subset of options for additional refinement based on markets, network effects, and cost recovery ratio • Finalize building block analysis and present at Workshop #3, September 13 • Prepare for Governance discussion prior to Workshop #3 to include: • Case study examination, e.g., South of the Lake • Optimization of Midwest rail service and brand • Elevation of MIPRC standing • Continued outreach to stakeholders
33 Key Contacts
Peter Schwartz FRA Project Manager (202) 493-6360 [email protected]
Anna Lynn Smith, AICP Consulting Team Project Manager (215) 209-1204 [email protected]
34