nysmpo freight presentation - nysampo freight presentation.pdf · ysteering committee reviews and...
TRANSCRIPT
Freight/InternationalFreight/InternationalMega-Projects
Session 3aSession 3aNYSMPO Conference
Niagara Falls, NY6/13/08
GBNRTC Freight StudyGBNRTC Freight StudyBackground and Initial Findings
Richard Guarino, AICP
NYSMPO Conference
Niagara Falls, NY
June 13, 2008
Purpose and BackgroundPurpose and Background
D ti hift i i b t thi t Dramatic shift in economic base over past thirty yearsFreight data is difficult to compile and is often proprietaryFreight transportation industry has adapted to the new economic environmentNiagara Frontier continues to be a critical freight transportation hubThe Port of Buffalo continues to play a critical role meeting the p y gregion’s freight transportation needsIn recent years, significant modifications and improvements have been made to the freight networkAfter several major mergers of the region’s rail system, there has been a major reduction of terminal operationsWe must meet changing transportation needs now and in the futureg g p
HistoryHistory
$680,000 had been allocated through NYSDOT State Planning and $680,000 a ee a ocate t oug S O State a g a Research (SPR) fundsStudy began in January 2007 and is expected to take 18 months to completecompleteSteering Committee consists of GBNRTC, Erie County, Niagara County, ECIDA, MTO, and NYSDOTSteering Committee acted as Consultant Selection CommitteeFour proposals received. Wilbur Smith Associates selectedDeliverables include 5 Technical Memos and a Final ReportDeliverables include 5 Technical Memos and a Final ReportSteering Committee reviews and comments on each Technical MemoFinal Report expected in July
Goals and ObjectivesGoals and Objectives
Mobility and Reliability
Environmental Improvementv o e ta p ove e t
Economic (Re)Development
Safetyy
Security
Preliminary FindingsPreliminary Findings• Highway System
• Strengths• Fluid truck movements and good accessibility to the area’s economic centers
• Reliable accessibility to the region and to external markets• Reliable accessibility to the region and to external markets
• According to Freight Forum participants, there are no substantial bottlenecks in region impeding freight movement. Peak hours are avoided.
Ch ll /O i i• Challenges/Opportunities• Buffalo Avenue (SR 384) is in need of significant roadway and bridge
rehabilitation. Ongoing TIP projects and BOA study.
• US 219 improvements will enhance north-south access
• Many primary and secondary routes are at or near capacity
Preliminary Findings• Rail
Preliminary Findings
• Strengths• North-South Connection - CN International Bridge, and CSXT’s
Niagara Branch and Beltline in Buffalo - provides connection to Canada
• East-West Connection - CSXT’s Chicago line and NS’s Southern Tier line provide major connections between NY/ NJ ports and western or southern stations in the US
• Weaknesses• Terminal capacity and switching operations - Interchange arrangement
between various rail carriers and excessive dwell times in the major terminals
• Congested Bridges - CP Draw Bridge over Buffalo River and railroad bridge over the Genesee River
• Inadequate competition - No direct access to local customers and high switching charges
Preliminary FindingsPreliminary Findings• Air Cargo
• Strengths• Both Erie and Niagara Counties have stewarded significant investment in
airport improvementsB h i h l f i h i• Both airports have surplus freight capacity
• Excellent access, available warehousing and room for expansion• Foreign Trade Zones - FTZ 23 (BUF) and FTZ 34 (IAG)
• Challenges/Opportunities• Challenges/Opportunities• Need increased share of Canadian Market• Need direct international all-cargo operations• Face competition from other airports• Face competition from other airports• Face competition from trucking• Underutilized cargo lift capacity on non express carriers• Smaller regional jets lack belly spaceS a e eg o a jets ac be y space• Backhaul
Preliminary Findings• Water
Preliminary Findings
• Strengths• Existing ports can handle additional cargo• Rail connection exists to many Buffalo terminals• Abundant land available in Buffalo for terminal development and port
expansion• Rail link exists to AES Somerset terminal
• Challenges/Opportunities• Expand the Port of Buffalo-Niagara to include the AES Somerset facilityExpand the Port of Buffalo Niagara to include the AES Somerset facility• Use the port to support agricultural production• Short Sea Shipping to US/Canadian Great Lake ports• U il bl t f t l d t t f i ht ill l i ti k • Use available waterfront lands to create freight villages or logistics parks
to service the container business
Intermodal Trends
Joe Gurskis
NYSMPO Conference
Niagara Falls, NY
June 13, 2008
AgendaTrends in international trade
Intermodal facility requirements
Western New York intermodal needs
International Trade TrendsReconfigured supply chainsReconfigured supply chains
China as an emerging trade giant
Shift in trade patternsShift in trade patterns
International Trade TrendsUS I t ti l G d T d US C t i T d
$3.0
$3.5
US International Goods Trade US Container Trade
25 0
30.0
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$Trillions
5 0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
TEUs (Millions)
ImportsExports
$0.0
$0.5
1990 1995 2000 2005 2007-
5.0
1995 2000 2005
Source: USDOT
International Trade Trends
Supply Chain Complexity
Global Supply Chain AttributesManufacturing Component g p
Low Labor Costs
Logistics ChainGeographically Extended
Agility CustomerSpecificity
Product DeliveryRisk of Unreliability
Specificity
InventoryIncreased Buffer Stock and Forward Locations Increased Buffer Stock and Forward Locations
China – The Awakened Giantf h d fUS imports from China increased five-
fold since 1998
By 2010, 32,000 “interstate” miles –l b il i 2001mostly built since 2001
By 2020, 62,000 intermodal rail route miles; 18 major hubs
Three of the four largest ports –Shanghai adding 20 million TEUs by 2020
Shift i T d R tShift in Trade Routes
All Water East Coast Routes
Intermodal freight rate increases from West Coast ports
West coast port congestion
Western US railroad congestion
Expansion of Panama Canal: paccommodate 12,000 TEU ships –5,000 TEUs today
Good NewsGood NewsIncreasing demand for East Coast intermodal capacity
EC Intermodal Capacity DriversEC Intermodal Capacity Drivers
Increased cargo volumes through East Coast ports – trade pattern Increased cargo volumes through East Coast ports trade pattern shifts
Satellite marine terminal role - need to move containers off the docks quickly
Roadway congestion surrounding ports
R i l di t ib ti d ll ti dRegional distribution and collection needs
Intermodal train economics becoming more favorable to medium length hauls – enhanced by increasing fuel pricesg y g p
EC Terminal DevelopmentEC Terminal DevelopmentHarrisburg
Prichard
Roanoke
Columbus
Chambersburg
Buffalo
Intermodal CapacityIntermodal CapacityNew Terminals
R k VARoanoke, VAPrichard, WVColumbus, OH
Critical Success FactorsCritical Success FactorsCooperative Relationship
Public benefitsImprove service to local shippersRegional growth engine
h Improves the environmentRailroad benefits
Market expansion or penetrationReduced costsFit with intermodal network
Ocean carriersExpanded businessR d d Reduced costsImproved container utilization
Bad NewsBad NewsNot everyone can have a terminal!!!
M M k t No intermodal terminal for you until you grow
up!!!!
Mrs. Market
up!!!!
MPO Jr.
Terminal Location Railroad CriteriaTerminal Location - Railroad CriteriaProspective terminal location must be on a railroad’s i t d l t kintermodal network
Intermodal networks designed to achieve balanced traffic flows
Intermodal routes support high speed trainsIntermodal routes support high speed trains
Connecting railroad routes should accommodate double stack container services
Terminal Location Railroad CriteriaTerminal Location - Railroad CriteriaTerminal volume must support frequent, long trains
Trains consume same line capacity irrespective of length – longer the better
High frequency service required to meet shipper product delivery High frequency service required to meet shipper product delivery schedules requirements
Terminals have high fixed costs – large volumes are required to cover the costcover the cost
Terminal Location Railroad CriteriaTerminal Location - Railroad CriteriaTerminals must be spaced for optimal service
Intermodal service is an “express” operation – train stops should be minimal
Terminals should not have overlapping geographic markets unless significant volumesg
Outbound container demand must be supported by unloaded inbound containers
Railroads typically charge a fee to reposition empty containers
Ocean carriers reluctant to have containers repositioned
Western New York Intermodal – Seneca Yard
Significant regional population = purchasing powerBuffalo-Niagara: 1.2 million peopleRochester 1 1 million peopleRochester: 1.1 million peopleToronto: 2.1 million people
Western New York Intermodal – Seneca Yard
Service oriented to PANYNJ and ChicagoThree day a week service Three day a week service from Port and ChicagoSample schedule: at dock on M il bl f i k Mon. – available for pick-up on Weds.
Western New York Intermodal – Seneca Yard
Initial annual capacity 22,000 unitsPl d l i l i Planned ultimate annual capacity 60,000 unitsTraffic MixTraffic Mix
PANYNJ: one-thirdDomestic/West international: two-thirds
Western New York Intermodal – Seneca Yard
Potentially stimulate local and regional development
Support servicesWarehousinggDistribution centers
ONTARIO NEW YORK BI NATIONAL ONTARIO – NEW YORK BI-NATIONAL COORDINATION
Frank Williams
NYSMPO ConferenceNiagara Falls, New York
June 13, 2008
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
• Ontario Ministry of Transportation
• Cross Border Coordination
• Current Projects with International Implications
Province of OntarioProvince of Ontario
Northern Ontario constitutes 87% ofthe land area of Ontario but containsless than 7% of the population.
d Road Distances:New York City – Niagara Falls 423 milesOttawa – Kenora 1200 miles
Province of OntarioProvince of OntarioWith a population of more than 12 million, Ontario is home to about one in three Canadians. Eighty per cent live in urban centres, The largest concentration of people and cities is in the "Golden Horseshoe" along theconcentration of people and cities is in the Golden Horseshoe along the western end of Lake Ontario including the Greater Toronto Area, Hamilton, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. About five million people live in the "Golden Horseshoe."
Ontario is North America's 2 nd largest motor vehicle assembler, after Michigan.Ontario exports more vehicles to the U.S. than Japan or Mexico.
Manufacturing contributes 94 per cent of the province's total goods exports andManufacturing contributes 94 per cent of the province s total goods exports and 58 per cent of Canada's total manufacturing exports. The U.S. is Ontario's biggest trading partner: more than 90 per cent of exports are sent there.
Ontario's manufacturing sector employs 1 1 million the second highest level inOntario s manufacturing sector employs 1.1 million, the second highest level in North America, after California.
Currently, the Ministry of Transportation is 1 of 30 Governmental Agencies charged with managing the Provincecharged with managing the Province.
Ontario Ministry of TransportationOntario Ministry of Transportation
Vision:
The Ministry of Transportation is committed to building a safe, efficient and Integrated transportation system that will contribute to safe and strong communities That offer a high quality of life.g q y
The Ministry’s Mandate consists of four priorities:
• Improving Public Transitp g
• Planning for and Investing in critical transportation infrastructure
• Promoting road safety; and,g y; ,
• Enhancing public service and customer satisfaction
Ontario Ministry of TransportationOntario Ministry of Transportation
International Border CrossingsInternational Border Crossings
Ontario has 14 road based International Border Crossings
New York has 19 International road based Border Crossingsg
There are 7 road based Border Crossings Between New York State
and Ontario
We Really Are Making ProgressWe Really Are Making Progress
Borders are a PriorityBorders are a Priority
Both Federal Governments recognize that our shared border crossings are vital f t i i d ti i th b i d t k t dfor sustaining and supporting economic growth by carrying goods to market and large volumes of trade between the two countries.
The Premier of Ontario has expressed that addressing border congestion is the p g gGovernment’s top economic priority.
Strategies for a New Age: New York State’s Master Plan for 2030 states “Efficient operation of the New York Canadian border crossings is essential toEfficient operation of the New York-Canadian border crossings is essential to the economies of both countries and to the acceptable flow of goods on the State’s trade corridors. . . . undue delays at the borders interfere with the tourism and commuter travel between New York and Canada. Security demands have added to the border challenges The charge for the future isdemands . . . have added to the border challenges. The charge for the future is to balance the competing requirements for security with the least restrictive traffic flows possible.”
Canada – U S TradeCanada U.S. Trade
By 2006 Canada / US trade was valued at $576 Billion annually nearly $1 6By 2006, Canada / US trade was valued at $576 Billion annually…nearly $1.6 Billion per day.
The Niagara Frontier is the 2nd busiest Canada / US border crossing
In 2006, 4 of 5 busiest border crossings in Canada were in Ontario
Windsor / Detroit – Ambassador Bridge (3.4M trucks)Sarnia / Port Huron – Blue Water Bridge (1 8M trucks)Sarnia / Port Huron Blue Water Bridge (1.8M trucks) Buffalo / Fort Erie – Peace Bridge (1.3 M trucks)Niagara / Lewiston – Queenston – Lewiston Bridge (1.0M trucks)
The Peace Bridge itself is Canada’s 3rd busiest Canada / US border crossing for trade.
Trade volume has a major impact on the highway system and has resulted in periodic congestion at key gateways in Niagara Windsor and Sarniaperiodic congestion at key gateways in Niagara, Windsor and Sarnia.
International Trade CorridorsInternational Trade Corridors
Management of International Border CrossingsManagement of International Border CrossingsCrossings are owned/controlled by private sector, federal agencies, special purpose bodies, municipalities and the province.
In Canada, Bill C-3 legislation will provide the federal government with the legislative authority to ensure effective oversight of the existing 24 international vehicular bridges and tunnels and nine international railway bridges and tunnels, as well as any
i t ti l b id t l b ilt i th f tnew international bridges or tunnels built in the future.
In the United States, the President delegated to U.S. Dept of State authority to issue Presidential Permits for construction, connection, operation or maintenance of f iliti t th b d f th U S li t ll i d t ll b t ti lfacilities at the borders of the U.S.; applies to all new crossings and to all substantial modifications.
Ontario has jurisdiction over the highways up to the approaches to the bridge.
NYS’s jurisdiction varies: similar to Ontario for bridge authorities; for Champlain up to CBP/GSA designated demarcation; for small crossings may be right up to border.
Issues Challenges and Recent EventsIssues, Challenges and Recent Events
Chamber of Commerce has estimated delays cost the CAN/US economy y y$13.6 B /YR
Cross border passenger traffic is sensitive to social and economic events, real or perceived and has declined by almost a quarter since 2000real or perceived, and has declined by almost a quarter since 2000
Events: 9/11, SARS, N.Y. casino openingsPerceptions: security, safety, border wait times, customs requirements
Cross border truck traffic is impacted by:economic trends exchange ratecatastrophic events (9/11)use of rail
Niagara Border – Auto CrossingsNiagara Border – Auto Crossings
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
800 000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 20072005
Queenston - Lewiston Rainbow Whirlpool Peace
So, If Border Traffic is Declining…
Governments need to think long term – it takes time to build new Infrastructure
Where’s the Problem?
• Projections for Ontario and border States forecast population increases over the next 20years
• Tourism and local travel expected to increase• Tourism and local travel expected to increase
• Development of a North American economic unit
• Capacity is Fragile even low growth estimates would see border traffic volume double• Capacity is Fragile – even low growth estimates would see border traffic volume doubleby 2030
International CoordinationInternational Coordination
Bi-National Transportation Strategy forThe Niagara Frontier
December 2006
Bi-National Transportation Strategy
Developed through an MTO NYSDOT partnership
p gyfor the Niagara Frontier
Developed through an MTO - NYSDOT partnership
Mandated by Ontario - New York Economic Summit held Summer 2001 (Premier – Governor Level)
Steering Committee consisting of federal, state, provincial, municipal and both Niagara-area bridge agencies directed development of the Strategy
Major Stakeholder event held Summer 2004
MTO Minister and NYSDOT Commissioner engaged in stakeholder discussions
Final Report released December 2006
Niagara Frontier Border Initiativesg
Bi-National Strategic Planning ProcessKey Elements of a Transportation Strategy
Cross-border CoordinationDevelopment of formal Bi national planning groups (Niagara and Windsor)Development of formal Bi-national planning groups (Niagara and Windsor)Participation with Federal initiatives (policy, funding, working groups)
Canadian and US Approach CorridorsThrough coordination ensure that transportation initiatives (road and other modes) areThrough coordination ensure that transportation initiatives (road and other modes) are considered in a systems perspective
Processing / Enforcement PlazasWork with Bridge Operators and regulatory agencies to provide adequate plaza capacityWork with Bridge Operators and regulatory agencies to provide adequate plaza capacity,processing staffing, and support for enhanced traveller programs like FAST and NEXUSand explore opportunities for Shared Border Management
Border Crossing Transportation CapacityBorder Crossing Transportation CapacityActive support for expansion and improvements at existing crossings
Network ManagementUse of technology to better manage approaches to crossing of international bridgesUse of technology to better manage approaches to crossing of international bridges
Stakeholder PositionsStakeholder Positions
Comments and advice received from a number of public and private agencies including Canada Border Services Agency, Homeland Security, the CAA and AAA, OTA, Chambers of Commerce, Ford, GM, Stelco and Dofasco focused on a few key themes:
Optimize coordination and cooperation among border and transportation agencies
Need key infrastructure improvementsNeed key infrastructure improvements
FAST and NEXUS provide the best opportunities for increased security and efficiency across the border
Use technology to enhance the flow of goods and people
Investigate the potential to optimize all modes
Niagara Frontier Bi-National Transportation Coordinating Group
Executive Committee
Direct,Endorse and Ad t
MTO Assistant Deputy Minister – Policy, Planning and Standards Branch
NYSDOT - Director Office of Southern Tier and
Coordinating Group
Steering Committee
Advocate
Coordination & Recommendations
NYSDOT - Director, Office of Southern Tier and Western Transportation Strategy
Transport Canada - Director Surface Operations
FHWA - Division Administrator
Region of Niagara Public Works Commissioner
GBNRTC Senior Policy Representative
MTO Director Transportation Planning BranchMTO – Director Transportation Planning Branch
MTO – Director Central Region
NYSDOT – Director Policy and Strategic Planning Bur
NYSDOT – Regional Director, Region 5
Transport Canada - Senior Advisor/Surface Programs
FHWA – Planning Chief
NYSTA – Deputy Division Director
Region of Niagara – Director of Transportation
Industry Stakeholders Advisory Groups
Local Municipalities
Border Agencies
Emergency Services
Bridge Operators
Region of Niagara Director of Transportation
GBNRTC – Senior Staff Representative
NITTEC – Executive Director
Stakeholders y p
Li i
PBA / NFBCCities of Buffalo, Niagara Falls, NY & Ont
Towns of Fort Erie and NOTL,
Counties
NFTA
Ont Ministry of Economic Trade & Development, NY Empire State Development
Associations, Airports, Shippers, Truckers, Rail, Marine, Local Chamber of Commerce
Enforcement agencies OPP/State Police
Municipalities Agencies Customs & Border Protection - Buffalo
Canadian Border Services Agency - Fort Erie
Other Bi-National
Services Operators
LiaisonTourism, CAA, AAA
EBTC / Can-US TBWG / Cam-Am Border Trade Alliance
Economic Roundtable
Niagara River Bi-National Border Mayors Coalition
Groups
• Coordinate, operate, maintain multi-agency transportation information systems;integrate technology; communicate information for all modes; enhance safety andefficiency of the regional bi-national transportation system
• Improve regional & international transportation mobility, promote economic competitiveness and minimize adverse environmental effects
• 14 agencies in Western New York and Southern Ontario
• 4 international border crossings
• 5 Ongoing Committees:• Traffic Operations• Technology and Systems• Incident Management• Construction Coordination• Border Crossing
http://www.nittec.org/
New Projects with International Implications
• Niagara to GTA Corridor Planning and EA Study
O i C i l V hi l S• Ontario Commercial Vehicle Survey
• Ontario to Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor
Niagara to GTA Corridor Planning and EA Study
MTO is conducting a planning study and environmental assessment to support the G th Pl ’ t t ti bj ti d t dd i l iGrowth Plan’s transportation objectives and to address regional economic development and planning issues.
This project seeks to provide additional capacity in the corridor and develop better li k b t th Ni f ti d th GTAlinkages between the Niagara frontier and the GTA.
Setting Ontario’s Future Growth
Provincial Growth Plan (2005)
Niagara to GTA Corridor Planning and EA Study
2005 2007 20092005 2007 2009
Individual Environmental AssessmentWe are here
Individual Environmental AssessmentWe are here
wth
Pla
n
Class EA for Design &
Construction
EA Terms of
ReferenceEA Phase 1 EA Phase 2
RecommendedTransportationDevelopment
Strategy
Constructio
Class EA for Design &
Construction
EA Terms of
ReferenceEA Phase 1 EA Phase 2
RecommendedTransportationDevelopment
Strategy
Constructio
Dir
ecti
ons
/ G
row
Alternative MethodsTransportation System Alternatives
on
Alternative MethodsTransportation System Alternatives
onG
over
nmen
t
Approved byMOE
June 9, 2006
MOE Review /Approval
EnvironmentalClearance
Alternatives to be pursued
by other Jurisdictions
Approved byMOE
June 9, 2006
MOE Review /Approval
EnvironmentalClearance
Alternatives to be pursued
by other Jurisdictions
APPROX. TIMELINE
Ontario Commercial Vehicle Survey
2005-2007 Roadside Truck Intercept Survey
Ontario Commercial Vehicle Survey
• Federal/ Provincial joint initiative, budget $5 million
• Data collected• Street address level trip & commodity OD• Route details• Commodity and truck utilization/load• Vehicle Characteristics• Linkages to economic value
• 81,000 surveys collected at 104 sites across Ontario• 11,000 of which were collected at Ontario border crossingsg• The scale of the previous 1999-2001 CVS involved 39,000 surveys
• Expected Date of Release – October 2008
Ontario Commercial Vehicle Survey
Truck Trips With Trip Ends in New York Using Ontario
Ontario Commercial Vehicle Survey
p p gHighways
Peace Bridge•Daily trucks 3,600
•1,440 (40%) have New York trip ends
Lewiston Bridge• Daily trucks 2,450
•1 640 (67%) New York trip ends
Toronto Syracuse
Sarnia
•1,640 (67%) New York trip ends
NEW YORK TRIPS
BuffaloSarnia
0 60 120 180Kilometers
1500 750 375
Niagara Frontier Truck TravelTrucks with Neither Origin Nor Destination in New York in GreenTrucks with Trip Ends in New York in Red
New York TradeDaily Truck Trips
1500 750 375
0 40 80 120
Kilometers
New York O-DNew York Thru Traffic
U.S. State Share of Total Truck Crossings In
6ns 42 5%
2007
4
5
6
Mill
ion 42.5%
Year 2007
•13 M Trucks
3
4
21.2%
•13 M. Trucks
•18% Share of Total Vehicles
1
2
e
.1%.0%
.8%.3%
9.6%
2.2%.2%
1.5%
.3%4.0%
.7%1.6%
0%
6.1%4.9%
4.0%
0
Ala
ska
Ala
ska
Idah
o
Mon
tana
Was
hing
ton
Mon
tana
Mon
tana
Nor
th D
akot
a
Min
neso
ta
Nor
th D
akot
a
Mic
higa
n
Min
neso
ta
New
Yor
k
Mai
ne
w H
amps
hire
New
Yor
k
Verm
ont
Mai
ne
.0%
N N
New
YT BC 11% AB SK MB ON 65% PQ 13% NBSource: Statistics Canada Int’l Border Data
Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor – Opportunity
Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor – Opportunity
Ontario, Quebec and Transport Canada are working together on a Strategy to ensure that the Ontario-Quebec multimodal transportation system remains a
titi d t f th t competitive advantage for the next generation.
The outcome of the Continental Gateway initiative will be a comprehensive initiative will be a comprehensive infrastructure, policy, and regulatory strategy for international trade along the Corridor over the next 10-15 years.
Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor can be key avenue for international trade to and from U.S. as well as Asia-Pacific and Atlantic gateways.
Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor – Challenges and Opportunities• Systematic approach to analyzing future capacity issues for all modes
of transportation and potential infrastructure, regulatory and policy solutions to:
Optimise transportation system and its integration
Strategically expand the transportation system
Ensure fluidity at critical border crossings and intermodal connections
Reduce environmental impacts and improve sustainability
Harmonize regulations/policies to strengthen safety, security, productivity and North American competitiveness
New York can be a key ally in helping ensure that commensurate improvements are made in the U.S.
Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway d T d C id R h P j tand Trade Corridor – Research Projects
National Commodity Flow, Trade and Traffic Forecast Fall 2008
Economic Benefits of the Continental Gateway Phase 1 – Summer 2008Phase 2 – Summer 2009
Multimodal Technical Papers – Current status of trade and Summer 2008Traffic flows, infrastructure performance, and key issues andO i i f ll d f iOpportunities for all modes of transportation
Border Technical Paper Summer 2008
Assessment of access to intermodal terminals and Summer 2008distribution/transload centersdistribution/transload centers
GPS based study of Continental Gateway highway performance Summer 2008
Future Multimodal Infrastructure capacity and performance Analysis Winter 2009
Institutional, Policy, Legislative, and Regulatory Review Summer 2008
Development of Assessment Criteria for Cont Gateway Improvements Summer 2008
http://www.continentalgateway.cap g y