Port Cargo Scenarios Reviewed

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Port Cargo Scenarios Reviewed"

Transcription

1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Overview of Technical Studies Presented to I-710 Corridor Advisory Committee January 21, 2009 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority I-710 Railroad Goods Movement Study Overview 1

2 Port Cargo Scenarios Reviewed Scenario 1: High Cargo Demand Forecast, High On-Dock Rail Capacity, No New Near-Dock Rail Facilities 40% of Port TEUs go by rail. Port TEUs = 43 Million Significant on-dock expansion (to nearly 13 Million TEU capacity) ICTF expanded to 1.4 Million TEU capacity (No SCIG) 300 containers per International train Scenario 2: High Cargo Demand Forecast, High On-Dock Rail Capacity, Both ICTF and SCIG Constructed/Expanded 40% of Port TEUs go by rail. Port TEUs = 43 Million Significant on-dock expansion (to nearly 13 Million TEU capacity) Expanded ICTF and construction of SCIG (each will have 2.8 Million TEU capacity) 300 containers per International train Scenario 3: Low Cargo Demand Forecast, Low On-Dock Rail Capacity, No New Near-Dock Rail Facilities 40% of Port TEUs go by rail. Port TEUs = 28.5 Million ICTF expanded to 760,000 lifts/year capacity (No SCIG) 240 containers per International train 3 Conclusions Freight railroads are nearing their efficient capacity in the LA Basin On-dock expansion likely, but level of yard efficiency assumed may not be fully realized Fewer containers served on-dock results in more containers traveling to near or off-dock facilities on area roadways Implementation of all near-dock expansion and construction assumed in Scenario 2 will be a great challenge Fewer containers served near-dock results in more containers traveling to off-dock facilities on area roadways 4 2

3 Conclusions (Cont d) On-dock and near-dock expansion assumed still does not meet International and Domestic intermodal needs million lift (1.3M TEU) shortfall Additional intermodal facilities will need to be constructed, or existing yards expanded. If intermodal need is not met, these trips will be made via truck on area roadways While Scenario 2 tries to provide a worst-case picture of railroad mainline capacity, it does not account for any growth in passenger trains To accommodate increase in passenger trains additional mainline tracks will need to be constructed. In some cases ROW constraints may limit the addition of these tracks 5 The Challenge What is the Ideal Balance to be achieved between level of growth and investment in the LA Basin? Community Acceptance? Port TEU Growth? Intermodal Facility Expansion? Passenger Rail? Economic Growth? 6 3

4 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Alternative Goods Movement Technology Study Overview Purpose of Alternative Technology Study Support EIS evaluation of environmental impacts and benefits attributable to a range of technologies Identify potential alignments for an alternative technology Define the attributes of a generalized alternative technology application Provide a technology-neutral definition of requirements 8 4

5 Background Zero Emission Container Movement System (ZECMS) Study technologies were reviewed for responsiveness to Ports near-dock intermodal service scenarios Proponents of 2 families of technology emerged as responsive: Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Systems Electric Cargo Conveyor System General Atomics Environmental Mitigation and Mobility Initiative Logistics Solution American Maglev Technology Exclusive Contact Guideway Systems (Steel wheel, Rubber tire) Automated Shuttle Car System Automated Terminal Systems, Inc. CargoRail/Cargo Tram MegaRail Transportation Systems Automated Fixed Guideway encompasses common aspects of both technology families 9 Background Potential Technologies Magnetic Levitation Exclusive Contact Guideway Electric/Battery Powered Trucks 10 5

6 Terminal Interfaces New Facilities for Automated Fixed Guideway Technology Ports: station tracks Intermodal Rail Facilities: station tracks Electrical/Battery Truck would interface just as conventional trucks do today. 11 Terminal Interfaces at the Ports Automated Fixed Guideway 10 Alternative Technology Stations Locations identified to serve cargo container terminal operators Station capacities based on port cargo forecasts 12 6

7 Terminal Interfaces Automated Fixed Guideway Plan View of a Two-Guideway Station Schematic from Moffatt & Nichol Approximately 2.9 acre footprint 13 Terminal Interfaces Automated Fixed Guideway Cross Section of a Two-Guideway Station Schematic from Moffatt & Nichol 14 7

8 Overall System Capacity Automated Fixed Guideway System Capacity is expressed as both station capacity and line haul capacity Sufficient system capacity to handle both offdock intermodal container demand and estimated new inland warehouse demand 15 Estimated Costs Automated Fixed Guideway Design/Construction Management - $30-$44 million per mile Capital - $150 million to $220 million per mile, a quadruple guideway estimated at $270 to $350 million Operations - $6.6 - $9.0 million per mile for the 1 st year of operations including staffing and power consumption. Maintenance - $0.9 - $1.5 million per mile for the 1 st year of operations including staffing and consumables. Estimate: $ 8.2 $11.3 billion to construct $ $367 million for the 1 st year to operate and maintain 16 8

9 Estimated Costs Electric/Battery Truck Design/Construction Management - $38-$39 million per mile Capital - $192 million to $196 million per mile Operations - $1.8 - $2.0 million per mile for the 1st year of operations based on a cost of $.20 per mile to operate electric/battery truck Maintenance cannot be determined at this time Estimate: $ 3.8 $3.9 billion to construct $36 - $41 million for the 1st year to operate 17 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Multimodal Review Overview 9

10 Multimodal Review Purpose: To assess the ability of other modes in the I-710 corridor to reduce auto and truck traffic on I Modes Assessed Person Trips: Bus Transit Rail Transit Non-motorized HOV TSM - ITS Freight: Demand Management TSM ITS Rail Alternative Technology 20 10

11 Multimodal Review Summary Effects on I % reduction in peak period autos due to expanded transit 1-12% reduction in peak period port trucks from TDM (1-6% reduction in peak period total PCE) 0% reduction in peak period autos from non-motorized mode 6% increase in capacity from ITS Tested in Initial Feasibility Analysis Alternative 2 TSM/TDM/Transit Alternative 3 Maximum Rail and Advanced Goods Movement Technology 21 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Initial Feasibility Analysis Results Overview 11

12 Objectives of IFA Assess feasibility of meeting mobility goals of Need & Purpose under different port cargo growth scenarios Select port cargo growth scenario for screening and final alternatives analysis Assess feasibility of meeting mobility goals with TSM/TDM Assess feasibility of meeting mobility goals with Maximum Rail Share and Alternative Goods Movement Technology 23 Criteria for Selecting Cargo Volume Scenario Reasonable assumptions about future demand based on economic analysis Incorporates improvements that are funded/programmed or based on sound commercial interests (private investment) Not biased to justify higher levels of infrastructure investment 24 12

13 Criteria for Selecting Cargo Volume Scenario Reasonable probability of developing a project to mitigate impacts Consistent with a conforming RTP If 2 scenarios have similar capacity requirements select scenario with higher impact levels Primary metric used is equivalent lane requirements for I Lane Requirements Results I-710 Required Lanes by Screenline Number of Lanes Screenline 1 No. of PCH Screenline 2 No. of Del Amo Screenline 3 So. of Rosecrans Screenline 4 No. of Atlantic/Bandini "Rounded" Trucks "Rounded" Autos 2 0 s.1 s.2 s.3a s.1 s.2 s.3a s.1 s.2 s.3a s.1 s.2 s.3a Comparison of Scenarios, By Screenline Scenarios: S.1: Port High Growth, no SCIG S.3a: Port Low Growth (without Longer Trips) S.2: Port High Growth, with SCIG 26 13

14 High Growth Scenario w/o Expanded Near-Dock Reflects reasonable assumptions about future demand Options for addressing rail constraints with new intermodal terminals and trucking around mainline constraints Only includes marine terminal expansion projects assumed in SCAG RTP Almost no difference in capacity requirements Conservative with respect to impact mitigation 27 TSM/TDM/Transit Alternative 28 14

15 TSM/TDM/Transit Lane Requirements I-710 Lane Requirements - High Growth Scenarion w/o Expanded Near-Dock Number of Lanes No Build Alternatives TSM/TDM/Transit Rounded Trucks Rounded Autos 29 Alternative Goods Movement Technology 30 15

16 Alternative Technology Traffic Impacts I-710 ADT Alternative 3 - Advanced Technology 300, ,000 Screenline 3 So. of Rosecrans Screenline 4 No. of Atlantic/Bandini Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 200, , ,000 Screenline 1 No. of PCH Screenline 2 No. of Del Amo Port Trucks Non Port Trucks Autos 50,000 0 S.1 S.2 S.3a S.3b S.1 S.2 S.3a S.3b S.1 S.2 S.3a S.3b S.1 S.2 S.3a S.3b Comparison of Scenarios, By Screenline 31 16