AASHTO Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report:

A Retrospective

1

AASHTO Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report:

Policy Questions

Do the truck and rail freight systems have the capacity to

handle the growing volume of freight – even if mode shares

remain constant?

Do the public benefits of a freight-rail system warrant public

investment to expand freight-rail capacity?

2020 Additional Truck Tons

2020 Additional Rail Tons

2000 Truck Tons

2000 Rail Tons

AASHTO Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report:

The Bottom Line

Freight volumes are growing with the economy; this growth will

strain the nation’s freight system

Rail freight productivity is challenged by congestion and

capacity choke points along national corridors, at intermodal

terminals, and at urban rail interchanges

Public rail investment historically has treated the bottom of the

system: grade crossings, branch lines, and commuter rail

services

Present need is to treat the top: nationally significant corridors,

intermodal terminals and connectors, and urban rail

interchanges

Public investment could produce significant savings in highway

infrastructure, highway user, and shipper costs

Freight Rail Since the AASHTO Report

4

“AASHTO SCORT 2010

Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report”

~2000 ~2010 ~2005

Freight Demand and Rail Expansion Investment

AASHTO

FRBL

~2000

AAR

Rail Capacity

~2005

“SCORT”

FRBL

~2010

National

Freight

Demand

(tons)

15B (2000)

26B (2020)

~70%

15B (2005)

29B (2035)

~90%

12B (2010)

20B (2035)

~65%

Additional

Investment

Needed in

Base Case*

$2.6B

per year to 2020

$1.4B

per year to 2035

~$1B (guesstimate)

per year to 2035

5

* Base Case defined as providing capacity expansion sufficient to keep pace with projected economic growth and

freight-rail demand and assuming no significant change in modal shares.

6

AASHTO

FRBL

~2000

AAR

Rail Capacity

~2005

“SCORT”

FRBL

~2010

Freight

Volume

Pax

Volume

Rail

LOS Approximately the same

network LOS as 2005

Freight Demand, 2000-2035

7

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Bill

ion

s o

f To

ns

1998

2004

2007

2009

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., based on IHS-Global Insight, Inc. TRANSEARCH

data and economic projections for multiple years from 1998 to 2009.

Rail Commodities, 2000-2010

8

Source: American Association of Railroads

Commodity Percent Change in Tons Originated

Metallic ores 126%

All other commodities 41%

Chemicals & allied prod. 20%

Farm products 17%

Food & kindred products 16%

Misc. mixed shipments 9%

Coal 7%

Waste & scrap materials 7%

Petroleum & coke 4%

Non-metallic minerals -3%

Pulp, paper & allied prod. -15%

Stone, clay & glass prod. -17%

Metals & products -26%

Motor vehicles & equip. -46%

Lumber & wood products -50%

9

U.S. Freight Railroad Performance, 1964-2011

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

1964 1974 1984 1994 2004

Source: American Association of Railroads

Revenue

Volume

Productivity

Price

Staggers Act

(deregulation)

October 1980

Class I RRs

(Index 1981 = 100)

Average Train Speed (mph), 1987-2011

10

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

Source: American Association of Railroads

Railroad Capital Spending, 2003-2012

($ billions)

11

$5.9 $6.2 $6.4

$8.5 $9.2

$10.2 $9.9 $9.8

$11.6

$13.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012e

Notes: Data are for U.S. Class I freight railroads. “e” indicates

estimated.

Source: Association of American Railroads

“The New Bottom Line”

RRs keeping pace with growth

RRs recovered traffic faster than other modes coming out

of recession, but coal volumes have been declining

RRs improving service performance to increase market

share and revenues

Some capacity to shift future freight from highway to rail,

but primarily for longer-haul traffic

Major challenge is to serve and capture domestic short-

to-medium-haul intermodal traffic

12