New rail corridor a lifeline for cargo Freight path designed to relieve congestion in port communities while pleasing neighbors
Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part series.
Moving freight efficiently along railroad tracks is a huge challenge, especially in a densely urbanized area like Southern California’s Inland Empire. With the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles staggering beneath the weight of Asian cargo, everyone along the shipping chain knew something dramatic had to be done. In April 2002 they had their solution.
It’s called the Alameda Corridor, a $2.4-billion 20-mile rail expressway linking the ports to the big train yards near downtown Los Angeles. From there, trains continue their long journey deep into America’s heartland, while trucks pick up much of the short-haul cargo. With half of the corridor set into a 35-foot-deep trench, its three tracks now shoot 50 trains a day eastward, and in the process remove8,500 containers that otherwise would have been trucked from the ports along already congested highways.
Like the Capitol Corridor, the Alameda Corridor is another train tale that underscores the promises and perils of an overworked transportation grid, in this case the ports, railroads and communities in Southern California that shoulder 40 percent of the nation’s cargo traveling by ship.
Isn’t it interesting that our own FRA is more interesting in giving money to rail projects that enhance the importation of cheap Chinese crap, than they are loaning money for rail projects that enhance the delivery of US coal?
The key word in Futuremodal’s post is “loan”. That means you have to pay it back. If you read the news section today, the FRA is worried that the DME will not be able to generate sufficent funds to repay the loan and then the burden to repay the loan would fall on the happy tax payer.
I thought that the FRA and the railroads had a minor hand in this project. I thought the state (CALTRANS) and the port authority were the major financial forces behind this. It was probably one of the cheapest ways to decrease traffic and another way to help the ports increase productivitiy. Was the original corridor three tracks or just double tracked? I am wondering how soon they might try something like this for the Port of Oakland.
I do know some people don’t like the truth. The Class I’s are subisidizing imports on the backs of domestic producers - that’s just a cold hard fact.
If you object to the phrase “cheap Chinese crap”, then I apologize. The fact is that most of that cross subsidization occurs for the benefit of Asian importers, mostly from China. Most of those imports are less expensive, they are indeed Chinese products, and in my view they are of lesser quality.
The Alameda corridor project was designed soley for the purpose of easing the transfer of Pacific Rim imports from the docks to the aggregation facilities. It was funded mostly with public money, along with the railroad contributions. No loans, just grants. Same for the NS double stack clearance project - all grants, no loans, thus no DM&E-like hit jobs by NIMBY’s.
That’s why the FRA rejection of the DM&E loan is a straw man. Joseph H. Boardman of the FRA says he rejected the loan on the grounds of potential default, but in reality the loan was rejected purely for political reasons. If the $2.8 billion was in the form of a grant, e.g. no prospect of default, the FRA still would have rejected it due to the influence peddling of the Mayo Clinic and BNSF.
Since the “giving” error of yours has already been pointed out, let’s look at the real truth.
If you weren’t constantly running to Wal-Mart to buy that “Chinese crap,” there’d be no market for it and there’d be no need for anyone to haul it, rail or truck. And you’ve already been corrected on the misconception that the rates for container haulage in the US is enough to make a difference in the final retail price of that “Chinese crap.”
Does anyone know what in the blazes Tom is harping on now? Sure, when I was younger and poorer I shopped at Wal-Mart, but now that I am older and financially well off I do my shopping at higher class stores. It’s not that I wouldn’t shop I Wal-Mart if need be, but why put up with the crowds of welfare cheats and punk kids?[;)] Plus, I make a habit of shopping locally-owned stores, again not to make some “buy local” point, but because I prefer the ambience.
Secondly, I have NEVER stated nor inferred that rail rates are the “only” reason Asian imports tend to be less expensive than US made goods. Indeed, I have made the point that I don’t care one way or the other if other countries want to sell their goods here in the USA at prices that are lower than those for US made goods, AS LONG AS OUR SO-CALLED AMERICAN RAILROADS ARENT SUBSIDIZING THOSE IMPORTS VIA HIGHER RATES ON DOMESTIC RAIL SHIPPERS! In addition, I do object strongly to our federal/state agencies being willing to aid the financing of projects like the Alameda Corridor, CREATE, and
So in this post, Dave claims that the importers are “favored” over the domestic shippers, through rail rates. I guess the fact that some shippers can load entire trains with containers for a single destination shouldn’t get them a lower rate compared to single containers that need to be sorted and loaded by the carrier for their destination.
The corridor improvements are based on traffic loads through the area, not anything to do with the point of origin for the freight. The Chicago area, for example, (CREATE) has been a major rail hub, with the attendant traffic congestion, for almost a century, just a bit longer than we’ve been importing any significant volume from China. But I guess this fact has escaped Dave, as usual.
Nice of you to only use half the quote to take this point out of context…
Typical Bertism.
But if you think CREATE is being pushed to aid those coal trains and UPS hotshots through Chicago, you’re delusional. Chicago has had this problem for years, but it’s only with the onset of steamship intermodal that this problem has been “recognized”. CREATE is being created for the primary purpose of aiding those double stacks from one side of the metro area to the other. The fact that domestic freight might get some residual benefits is of secondary concern for it’s promoters.
Note also that the DM&E project had little if any residual benefit for steamship intermodal, but had enormous benefit for domestic freight. Can you tell us why the only projects that get the public financing go ahead are those that just happen to also involve the transport of imports, while those that don’t aid the transport of imports get shot down by that bastion of patriotism known as the FRA?
That’s why I am half way serious to suggest that DM&E find a way to incorporate import transportation into a second request for federal aid, aka make the project a true transcon. It’d be ironic if a $7 billion loan request for a DM&E transcon was approved after the $2.8 billion for a domestic regional was shot down, wouldn’t it?
First, the CREATE project is to help relieve rail congestion in the Chicago area, which has been a major rail hub in this country for almost a century. It has to do with rail traffic volume and has no bearing on where the traffic originates or terminates. Whether the domestic origin or foreign origin of the freight pushed the capacity of the system to the breaking point or not is easily debatable and can be “proven” to support either position depending on how you manipulate the statistics.
Second, the refusal of the DM&E loan from the feds simply proves the Mayo Clinic has more political clout than the DM&E.
Great History channel episode of Modern Marvels “Freight Trains” had lots of coverage of the Alameda corridor and BNSF lines running them last night! Check for rebroadcasts?
Dave’s repeated rants against overseas-originated intermodal traffic suggests that he would really like to see the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of the 1930’s reinstated. He should also be advised that if he is looking to buy an American-made television that they don’t exist anymore.
Paul, you know perfectly well what I am stating here, so don’t misrepresent what I say like Tom always does.
I have absolutely no problem with overseas imports.
Clear on that?
I DO have a problem with America’s Railroads cross-subsidizing those imports at the expense of domestic rail shippers.
Clear on that one?
Now, you are more than welcome to disagree on that premise if you want.
And for the record, yes I do have prior knowledge of Smoot-Hawley, no I don’t favor a return to protective tarrifs, and I’ll check and see if indeed there are no more US made TV’s.