container facility in southie

[Tracer]

Massport has its phase 1 haul road project out to bid. It cuts thru/behind the old tank farms and power plant(what f line mentioned earlier in the thread). It more or less follows a route a rail line to conley would need to take. I looked at the drawings and theres nothing rail related being built(in this phase anyway).

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Massport has its phase 1 haul road project out to bid. It cuts thru/behind the old tank farms and power plant(what f line mentioned earlier in the thread). It more or less follows a route a rail line to conley would need to take. I looked at the drawings and theres nothing rail related being built(in this phase anyway).

Nope. Because that would require building a rail bridge across Reserve Channel next to the Summer St. bridge. And that's a little too big a leap until Conley can guarantee the traffic. The new Track 61 spur to Marine Terminal is way less expensive. Building the haul road does clear out a ROW to shiv a single track on the side of the curb much like the realigned portion of Track 61 in front of the Convention Center, so they are keeping the option open should Conley traffic merit it in the future.

There's also supposed to be a realigned intersection put in from Southie Haul Rd. to the corner of Summer and Drydock to give the Conley trucks a more straightforward path than the Pumphouse Rd. lights. That may force them to kick off work realigning Track 61 on this block for the Marine Terminal plan.

[bostontrainguy]

I don't know why we even need the expensive new Summer Street Bridge, a Haul Road truck bridge, or a rail bridge. That remnant of the Reserve Channel west of Summer Street should simply be filled in and it won't be missed. It's just a unpleasant useless backwater that serves no purpose.

Move the small boat club east of the bridge, fill the small bay and generate a sizeable new piece of property for Massport to expand their port facilities. It could even become a container storage/rail yard for Conley.

[Tracer]

Haul Rd

[fogg1703]

Does Massport need to purchase the land behind Exelon?

[XBNSFer]

It is/would be cheaper, with better service, to truck the containers to/from CSX's Worcester intermodal terminal.

Doubt it would be cheaper. Trucking is expensive. Trucking from NJ is expensive in the NYC area (as another example), but heavily taxed cities drove railroad terminals out and the expensive "solution" is all that remains. Double stacking multiplies the problems since the "old" facilities, even if still accessible for freight traffic, never had enough clearance for them to begin with.

Service is another question, given the stupid commuter operator restrictions. Amazing how the New Haven RR and PRR and NYC all managed to run both significant freight traffic along with commuter and/or long haul passenger trains on their main lines, but when quasi-government operators took over passenger train operations, suddenly they just couldn't possibly handle freight traffic unless it runs at three o'clock in the morning.

[MaineCoonCat]

Service is another question, given the stupid commuter operator restrictions. Amazing how the New Haven RR and PRR and NYC all managed to run both significant freight traffic along with commuter and/or long haul passenger trains on their main lines, but when quasi-government operators took over passenger train operations, suddenly they just couldn't possibly handle freight traffic unless it runs at three o'clock in the morning.

IMHO, Excellent point!

[QB 52.32]

It is/would be cheaper, with better service, to truck the containers to/from CSX's Worcester intermodal terminal.

Doubt it would be cheaper. Trucking is expensive. Trucking from NJ is expensive in the NYC area (as another example), but heavily taxed cities drove railroad terminals out and the expensive "solution" is all that remains. Double stacking multiplies the problems since the "old" facilities, even if still accessible for freight traffic, never had enough clearance for them to begin with.

You can doubt it all you want, but that's reality. Railroads are most efficient handling aggregated volume while truck is most efficient at collection and distribution. As a matter of fact, trucks are used in New England for far greater distances and volumes from railheads than what, if any, traffic a South Boston container terminal would offer because it's cheaper than rail. There are plenty of examples where truck is used to/from rail hubs instead of using rail direct to multiple smaller locations. One eastern Class 1 even ran some of their traffic via truck off the Chicago and St. Louis railheads to Minneapolis/St.Paul, Kansas City, Dallas and even LA and San Francisco instead of via your previous employer for the same or better cost and better service.

[CRail]

Trucks aren't cheaper because trucks are cheaper, they're cheaper because 1.) truckers are handed their infrastructure by the gov't while railroads are forced to maintain their own and 2.) local business switching doesn't have the same profit margin as the mainline freights making the class 1s more interested in streamlined shipments while letting the nitty gritty fall by the wayside (unless some little guy like the G&U doesn't mind picking up the grunt work). Even some of the smaller guys like Guilford have jacked their local delivery prices to make their smaller customers go away (they couldn't wait to get rid of Newlyweds who hung on to their service as long as they possibly could). It doesn't help that post 50s politics which built the road infrastructure strategically suffocated the rail industry as best it could turning most anything that wasn't a thriving main line (although including some which were) into a bike trail or a curious tree line visible from google maps, thus making most industries inaccessible without expensive reactivations. There's no doubt in my mind that if at least half of the expansive network that once existed still did, rail would be the primary option for any business receiving deliveries greater than what UPS and FedEx typically handle, and trucks would only serve the few still out of reach. The rail network was quite strategically placed (except perhaps for the redundant routes built by competing railroads) and well structured around the industries that it served, only failing because of the more plentiful political strategies behind boosting the oil and automotive industries.

There's no way to argue that in any scenario, local or long haul, shipment by rail is more efficient and cost effective than trucks. I really think that, over the next 50 years, the damage caused to the rail industry over the last 50 will be healing quite a bit. We'll never see a full recovery, but it'll be rather expansive in relation to what exists today.

[KEN PATRICK]

i believe the cost of trucking a 40( empty return included) from port newark to long island destinations is $950. there is no incentive for csxt to try to capture any of this traffic. rail is just not feasible. the same impediments attach to any rail move of containers from south boston. i recognize the port authority pays lip service to rail but what shipper would support a rail move when it would take 2 days just to get to framingham ? let's face it, our eastern mass rail is commuter oriented. i know there are some time independent moves but these are small offerings when contrasted with ny-nj. boston port container moves are truck. ken patrick

[Cowford]

"There's no doubt in my mind that if at least half of the expansive network that once existed still did, rail would be the primary option for any business..."

There should be. Today's US rail mileage is down only 45% from its peak in 1916.

[jwhite07]

"There's no doubt in my mind that if at least half of the expansive network that once existed still did, rail would be the primary option for any business..."

There should be. Today's US rail mileage is down only 45% from its peak in 1916.

Is that route mileage or track mileage? There is a huge amount of capacity (multiple track, interlockings, signal systems, yards and terminals, etc.) that have been removed, even though a line may still be active. And as Mr. Patrick noted, in the Boston metro area, as well as many other cities, existing rail infrastructure has seen a precipitous decline in freight use, yet an enormous increase in passenger use which may well preclude any return of freight traffic to the levels they once were. Take the former B&A main line for example. Route miles from Framingham to Boston is still about 22, but track mileage is halved - it was once 4 tracks, now two. Taking a more contemporary view, just 20 years ago Beacon Park was a very busy place, with a number of locals such as WABP-10 and WABP-11, always several B23-7s or GP15-1s shuffling cars around the full yard, and something like 6 to 8 road freights including hot "TV" intermodals each day to and from. Today, Beacon Park is dead empty, with only one local freight in each direction passing through. Yet there are 50 passenger trains between Boston and Framingham each weekday, up from 35 20 years ago, and more to come if plans to restore Amtrak Inland Route service ever bear fruit, all using the same infrastructure that existed in 1994. Freight on the east end of the B&A has essentially been squeezed out.

[QB 52.32]

Trucks aren't cheaper because trucks are cheaper, they're cheaper because 1.) truckers are handed their infrastructure by the gov't while railroads are forced to maintain their own and 2.) local business switching doesn't have the same profit margin as the mainline freights making the class 1s more interested in streamlined shipments while letting the nitty gritty fall by the wayside (unless some little guy like the G&U doesn't mind picking up the grunt work). Even some of the smaller guys like Guilford have jacked their local delivery prices to make their smaller customers go away (they couldn't wait to get rid of Newlyweds who hung on to their service as long as they possibly could). It doesn't help that post 50s politics which built the road infrastructure strategically suffocated the rail industry as best it could turning most anything that wasn't a thriving main line (although including some which were) into a bike trail or a curious tree line visible from google maps, thus making most industries inaccessible without expensive reactivations. There's no doubt in my mind that if at least half of the expansive network that once existed still did, rail would be the primary option for any business receiving deliveries greater than what UPS and FedEx typically handle, and trucks would only serve the few still out of reach. The rail network was quite strategically placed (except perhaps for the redundant routes built by competing railroads) and well structured around the industries that it served, only failing because of the more plentiful political strategies behind boosting the oil and automotive industries.

There's no way to argue that in any scenario, local or long haul, shipment by rail is more efficient and cost effective than trucks. I really think that, over the next 50 years, the damage caused to the rail industry over the last 50 will be healing quite a bit. We'll never see a full recovery, but it'll be rather expansive in relation to what exists today.

Trucks are more efficient than rail for the dis/aggregation of freight, handling freight in smaller volumes and/or moving shorter distances, and, providing flexibility. Thinking that our economy would be as productive as it is, supporting the growth and standard of living we enjoy since the 1950's, if the interstate highways were not built is simply based upon emotional interest in rail transportation. The real failing of our government's earlier regulation of railroading (which actually was initially promoted by the railroads themselves to check the overbuilding during the peak period just after the turn of the century) and promotion of competing modes, was stopping railroads from owning different modes and becoming intermodal transportation companies. In this scenario I have no doubt that the railroads themselves would have invested in or promoted highways and highway technology. The efficiencies and economics would have dictated such and that trend had already begun with rail bus and truck lines replacing lighter density operations. When it comes to the future, we're still going to be road-based with technological innovation improving its efficiency and railroads being used, albeit to some greater extent, for doing what they do best: heavier, longer-haul, higher volume freight.

[QB 52.32]

"There's no doubt in my mind that if at least half of the expansive network that once existed still did, rail would be the primary option for any business..."

There should be. Today's US rail mileage is down only 45% from its peak in 1916.

Is that route mileage or track mileage? There is a huge amount of capacity (multiple track, interlockings, signal systems, yards and terminals, etc.) that have been removed, even though a line may still be active. And as Mr. Patrick noted, in the Boston metro area, as well as many other cities, existing rail infrastructure has seen a precipitous decline in freight use, yet an enormous increase in passenger use which may well preclude any return of freight traffic to the levels they once were. Take the former B&A main line for example. Route miles from Framingham to Boston is still about 22, but track mileage is halved - it was once 4 tracks, now two. Taking a more contemporary view, just 20 years ago Beacon Park was a very busy place, with a number of locals such as WABP-10 and WABP-11, always several B23-7s or GP15-1s shuffling cars around the full yard, and something like 6 to 8 road freights including hot "TV" intermodals each day to and from. Today, Beacon Park is dead empty, with only one local freight in each direction passing through. Yet there are 50 passenger trains between Boston and Framingham each weekday, up from 35 20 years ago, and more to come if plans to restore Amtrak Inland Route service ever bear fruit, all using the same infrastructure that existed in 1994. Freight on the east end of the B&A has essentially been squeezed out.

Railroads are far more productive in using their infrastructure today and given economics, their markets have shifted out and away from growing urban areas whose land has much more value supporting higher-earning activity than lower-value freight activity. So, in your example, 1 doublestack train, handling roughly the same freight that once required 3 or 4 trains, can now be unloaded in Worcester and distributed to the distribution centers arrayed along the I-495 beltway. Sounds like a much more productive system requiring less infrastructure than the past, well-matched to the marketplace, and supporting Cowford's point.

[Cowford]

You guys are getting it backwards. The freight railroad infrastructure declined in Boston (and New England in general) because the industrial base declined, not the other way around. If that's not true, identify an industry that may locate in Boston that would directly use rail. I'm thinkin' you won't see another Monsanto (formerly in Everett), Ford (Somerville) or GM (Framingham) ever again.