CRITICAL CARGO A Regional Freight Action Agenda ...for jobs, economic growth and quality of life in metropolitan Chicago Prepared by: Business Leaders for Transportation April 2002 Written by: John McCarron formerly Metropolitan Planning Council and Jim LaBelle Chicago Metropolis 2020 With assistance from Karyn Romano, transportation director, Metropolitan Planning Council; Mary DeBacker, former transportation associate, Metropolitan Planning Council; and David Young, freelance transportation writer/historian. Photo courtesy of TranSystems Corporation. Business Leaders for Transportation Freight Transportation Working Group Participants ABN AMRO Bank N.V. Illinois Transportation Association APL Limited A.T. Kearney Inc. Amtrak Metra Andersen Metropolitan Planning Council Belt Railway Company of Chicago Northwestern University Alfred Benesch & Company Patrick Engineering Inc. The John Buck Company Regional Economics Applications Laboratory/ The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway University of Illinois Company Regional Transportation Authority CSX Corp. Schiff, Hardin & Waite Canadian National Railway Company/Illinois Transportation Communications International Central Railroad Union CenterPoint Properties Trust TranSystems Corp. Chicago Area Transportation Study Union League Club of Chicago Chicago Metropolis 2020 Union Pacific Corp. Chicago Southland Chamber of Commerce United Parcel Service of America Inc. Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce United States Department of Transportation City of Chicago Federal Highway Administration Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois United Transportation Union R.R. Donnelley Logistics University of Illinois at Chicago Foley & Lardner Vlecides-Schroeder Associates Inc. Grove Management Company Inc. World Business Chicago Illinois Department of Transportation Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 4 Background 6 A system challenged by growth 7 The intermodal revolution 8 A joint-use corridor 10 A region of grade crossings 11 Recent developments 12 Recommendations 16 Case Study: California’s Alameda Corridor Appendices 1) Problem grade crossings in the Chicago region 18 a) Illinois Commerce Commission FY 2002-2006 crossing improvement list 20 b) American Association of Railroads list of crossings that interfere with rail efficiency in the region 22 c) Chicago Area Transportation Study list of crossings with “highest predicted annual accident rates” 23 2) Illinois Department of Transportation list of Chicago area freight bottlenecks 24 3) Connector roadways serving five major intermodal yards 27 Endnotes Executive Summary ne of the Chicago metropolitan area’s most lion of us who live and work in northeastern Almost everywhere one Oimportant industries – indeed, the activity Illinois, whether the impact is measured in excess looks, the movement of most responsible for our region’s historic rise as a commuting time, worsened levels of air pollution, freight across the global economic center – is in need of renewal. missed school classes and business appointments Chicago region is being or delayed shipments to businesses. stalled. Almost everywhere one looks, the movement of freight across the Chicago region is being stalled, And yet, while the Chicago region’s need for addi- sidetracked or otherwise delayed by an assortment tional airport capacity has been debated extensive- of bottlenecks, most the result of overloaded or ly in public and governmental forums, little atten- obsolete road and rail systems. tion has been paid, outside shipping industry cir- cles, to the problems of our freight network. It Moving freight across the Chicago region by rail – was this lack of awareness that prompted Business a passage made by nearly a third of the nation’s Leaders for Transportation, which represents more total rail shipments – typically takes two days or than 10,000 employers across the Chicago region, more, with train speeds averaging between 6.8 to convene a Freight Transportation Working – 1 – and 12 m.p.h. Cross-regional truck speeds, now Group of industry and other experts. in the 10 to 15 m.p.h. range, have also been in decline, especially along the Interstate 80, 94 and The Working Group’s research and information- 294 corridors, portions of which are loaded sharing over 12 months provided the basis of this beyond capacity most weekdays. report. With the input of these experts, Business Leaders for Transportation makes three near-term But it is not just freight shipments that are being recommendations, which are summarized here delayed by mile-long back-ups of tractor-trailers at and explained more fully in the text of the report. tollbooths and interchanges, or by trains blocking too many of the region’s 1,953 at-grade crossings. This is everybody’s headache. Freight system hang-ups, for instance, contribute to unreasonably long automobile commuting times Gridlock at a Glance in the region, which have been cited as the third worst in the nation.1 Number of rail freight cars moving daily through the region 37,500 At stake, then, is not just the future Average train speed across region 6.8-12 mph of an $8 billion regional shipping Average truck speed across region 10-15 mph industry that employs 117,000 Number of at-grade railroad crossings 1,953 Chicagoans with an annual payroll of $3.2 billion. Freight problems Number of Intermodal yards 26 affect the daily lives of all eight mil- Number of daily truck trips between railyards 3,500 Ranking among nation’s most congested metropolitan areas third worst Photo courtesy of TranSystems Corporation. Recommendation 1: Organize public/ B) Replace with grade separations the 40 private support for a package of priority worst at-grade crossings in the capital improvements to the region’s freight Chicago region, as measured by train network that will expand capacity, lessen and traffic delays and/or serious acci- gridlock and support job expansion: dents. A rail industry planning group has identified crossings “that have an especially A) Establish a joint-use freight corridor, severe impact on rail efficiency in the re- – 2 – after investigating the now-under- gion” and asks that at least 50 of them be utilized southern arc of the Elgin, grade-separated or simply closed (see Joliet and Eastern (EJ&E) Railway appendix 1b). The City of Chicago, and other corridors prioritized by the Chicago Area Transportation Study and industry. This strategy is not unlike the Illinois Commerce Commission also the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles maintain lists of inadequate crossings, (see p.16). Already being studied by including several that are as dangerous as Metra for its potential as an outer subur- they are delay-causing. ban connector of commuter lines, the southern arc of the EJ&E’s right-of-way C) Upgrade the region’s 55 miles of cru- could be upgraded for both freight and cial intermodal connector highways, commuter uses. Any joint-use corridor which are roads used to haul containers would entail grade separations, bridge between the region’s 26 intermodal rail widenings, double- or triple-tracking and yards. Work should begin as soon as possi- improved connections with the six mainline ble on the 17 miles recently studied by the freight railroads they cross. These corri- Federal Highway Administration as in dors would enable transcontinental freight need of $65 million worth of widening, trains to move more efficiently through the repaving, drainage and signalization. A city and close-in suburbs, reducing pollu- study should be conducted on the remain- tion and traffic gridlock while improving ing 38 miles of connector routes to deter- connectivity among the region’s intermodal mine needed upgrades and improvements. freight yards. Doing so has the potential to reduce the 3,500 truck trips made each day simply to haul shipping containers from one rail yard to another. Recommendation 2: Secure $20 million Recommendation 3: Establish, by state in federal funding support over the next two legislative action, a regional, public/private years to cover the public portion of planning freight entity to plan, coordinate and help for the priorities listed above. As the nation’s finance improvements to the metropolitan most critical freight transportation connection freight transportation system. One option is point, northeastern Illinois merits significant fed- to create a fourth, freight-only service board under eral assistance for freight improvements in the the existing Regional Transportation Authority. upcoming fiscal year budget and TEA-3 reautho- Another option is to create a separate metropoli- rization in 2003. Limited state matching funds tan authority, such as that governing McCormick also will be needed to build on the $10 million Place operations. The new entity would apply for, set-aside for freight improvements in the Illinois accept and dispense federal capital grants; issue FIRST program. So will private industry invest- tax-exempt revenue bonds on behalf of participat- ments, perhaps made via container or rolling ing railroads; and, if needed, acquire and manage stock surcharges like those used in California on land for the purposes of freight-related economic the Alameda Corridor. development. – 3 – The freight industry generates $8 billion in gross value of economic activity and a $3.2 billion annual payroll. * projected Source: Regional Economics Applications Laboratory (REAL), 2001 Background he efficient movement of freight has been the verging on the metropolitan area. When Chicago Tengine of northeastern Illinois’ economy for has a delivery