A Solution to JaxPort's Rail Logistics Problem?

[Metro Jacksonville]

A Solution to JaxPort's Rail Logistics Problem?



The City and Port Authority believe spending $60 million for a new railyard may be the solution to the port's logistics problem.  Metro Jacksonville offers up an alternative solution.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/765

[Charles Hunter]

Interesting proposal, getting those boxes from the ships out on the rails quickly (and the other way 'round, too) is the key to making the post successful, and reducing the number of trucks on our streets and highways.

I have 2 questions:

1.  I am surprised that the line parallel to North Main Street - going toward Nassau County - is owned by a Short Line, I doesn't CSX own that line?

2.  What would be the frequency and length of trains using the MerotJax Short Line between the North Jax ports (D.Pt., Mitsui, Hanjin) and the NS / CSX railyards off of I-295 and FEC off Philips Hwy.?  In other words, what sort of disruption in blocked highway grade crossings and horn blowing, would Springfield and San Marco have to endure?  Alternatively, what would be the cost to create Rail Quiet Zones at the numerous grade crossings through there?  As I understand it, Quiet Zones require four-corner crossing arms, medians, and upgraded train detection equipment - a cost somebody has to bear.

[JeffreyS]

This really would add a great deal of control over our ports access to different rail carriers.  An excellent proposal that should garner serious consideration.

[Ocklawaha]

Interesting proposal, getting those boxes from the ships out on the rails quickly (and the other way 'round, too) is the key to making the post successful, and reducing the number of trucks on our streets and highways.

I have 2 questions:

1.  I am surprised that the line parallel to North Main Street - going toward Nassau County - is owned by a Short Line, I doesn't CSX own that line?

I believe the line is owned by CSX and leased (long term) to a shortline. Though I have not looked at the legal paperwork there is some sort of break at Yulee. Currently, the FC RR operates the St. Marys/Kings Bay - Yulee - Fernandina Beach portion, and the CSX the Yulee - Jacksonville segment. But the current "ownership" of the track shows FC from the Duval County Line and/or just north of Bush, Northward as the FC.

We probably should also note that as the Florida Corridor comes online in the next 2 dozen years, the old Seaboard route from Savannah to Jacksonville via Yulee, Busch and Springfield, has got to look better and better. It is much more direct, and much shorter then the former Atlantic Coast Line through Jessup.

2.  What would be the frequency and length of trains using the MerotJax Short Line between the North Jax ports (D.Pt., Mitsui, Hanjin) and the NS / CSX railyards off of I-295 and FEC off Philips Hwy.?  In other words, what sort of disruption in blocked highway grade crossings and horn blowing, would Springfield and San Marco have to endure?  Alternatively, what would be the cost to create Rail Quiet Zones at the numerous grade crossings through there?  As I understand it, Quiet Zones require four-corner crossing arms, medians, and upgraded train detection equipment - a cost somebody has to bear

Certainly some crossings could be closed and many up-graded. Since the "S" follows the NS between Springfield and Liberty, these crossings are already protected. Only the Pearl Street - Union Station area would need to be completely relaid and re-protected.

Traffic is a real concern, but based on the numbers from both our port (projections) and the port of Los Angeles (actual count and resulting traffic) I have the following.

2,000,000 containers per year = 5,479 containers per day (or a little less then one super container ship at 8,000 per ship)



Using a lower capacity 2 container car, as opposed to a 4 container "double-stack car", Considering 2 containers per rail car, that equals 2,739 rail cars leaving the port daily. If all new double stack cars were used that number would fall to 1369 daily cars.

With a 75 car limitation this equates to 18 - 37 trains a day.

The kay to this is that it assumes that 100% of the traffic from the port moves by rail, a noble goal but unrealistic at best. National numbers would place it at about 1/3 of the traffic moving by rail which has the effect of futther reduction in number of trains or train cars. Realistic numbers would place the quanity of 75 car trains between 6 and 12 daily.



The 6 - 12 trains would be split between 3 major railroads, and the split would not be equal. FEC would take most of the South Florida traffic, CSX the West Bound and traffic bound for the Atlantic Coast, While NS would take a slight majority of the Atlanta - Chicago - Memphis - St. Louis central corridor traffic. The CSX trains would come off the terminal trackage at Norwood, The NS trains would come off at Springfield Yard, leaving only the FEC traffic to move to the Union Station area. The only possible exception to this would be CSX traffic bound for the west or SW Florida, which they "MIGHT" want delivered to the Union Station area.

In the end it's hard to see how 6 - 12 new 75 car trains would bring the City to it's knees. Frankly, though it would be great for the City, for transit, and for our economic future, I doubt anyone would notice.


Turning back the pages to the OCKLAWAHA VALLEY RAILROAD... It really doesn't matter what year one studies, Railroad yards are $$ killers...


Ocklawaha

[Charles Hunter]

Good work, Ock.
One-third by rail seems reasonable.  And 6 - 12 trains per day doesn't sound too onerous.  But then, I don't live in Springfield, near the "S-Line" that hasn't seen a train in (how many) years.

[billy]

bravo, bravissimo.....

[thelakelander]

Good work, Ock.
One-third by rail seems reasonable.  And 6 - 12 trains per day doesn't sound too onerous.  But then, I don't live in Springfield, near the "S-Line" that hasn't seen a train in (how many) years.

That 6 to 12 would be split between three rail lines and that true number is probably a closer to 6 then 12.  It would probably shake down to two trains per day each for CSX, FEC and NS.  If this is the case, the S-Line would only have two daily trains heading towards FEC's line.

Personally, I think residents on the Northside would embrace a little train noise if the trade off is positive economic impact within their neighborhoods from the creation of jobs, higher property values, revitalization of blighted commercial corridors, better mass transit and urban infill in the form of transit oriented developments.

[Charles Hunter]

OK, so the only trains using the refurbished S-Line would be going from the North Jax ports to FEC's Philips Hwy yard / mainline?  Would either CSX or NS be sending Port traffic to their yards in NW Jax? or would their trains go directly to their mainlines without going to their existing yards?

[thelakelander]

Service to CSX yards could use the same track they run down now that cuts through Panama Park to Moncrief Yard.  NS service would most likely use the same track in operation now that parallels MLK Parkway, a few blocks to the south.  The rebuilt S-line would primary serve as the direct connection to the Prime Osborn area and FEC.

[Ocklawaha]

Even if the number of trains were 12 or more, I doubt the FEC would capture more then 1 or 2 daily trains. The reason is in the name, "Florida East Coast", with a Jacksonville - Miami route down the beach side of the state, their market reach is limited.

CSX and NS on the other hand have an unlimited market, reaching or connecting with all of North America. So traffic growth would fall on the segment from the port to Panama Park (CSX) and Springfield (NS). If and when growth became an issue with commuter rail there is the former Atlantic Coast Line bridge (site) east of the current Trout River bridge that would form a perfect bypass.

NS traffic would certainly go to Simpson Yard up by Amtrak where they make up through trains for Atlanta, Cincinnati and beyond. Simpson is a small flat yard and could be replaced in the future with something easier to work. A buyout of FEC would almost certainly move NS yard work to Bowden. As it now stands, I don't think Simpson would contain a major traffic boom beyond a couple of trains daily.

CSX traffic would feed into Moncrief, but Moncrief isn't doing the heavy work of building lots of long-distance trains as it once did. The would mean that nearly everything going to CSX would be transfered to Waycross and the huge hump yard there. These delays would make NS more attractive to some shippers. CSX might fix this with a new make-up facility at Moncrief or the former West Jax yard. Traffic moving westbound on CSX might also use the former "S" as an access to the "A" or "S" or Westbound mainlines.

We have plenty of yards now, the problem for the individual railroads is they are not in the right place or not designed to handle this traffic. But this isn't a solution we can do for them. It would be impossible for JAX TERMINAL or whatever we call the new City owned trackage, to destination or delivery sort for each individual railroad company. All we need is a few tracks to "block" the cars to the delivery carrier. For example track A-B are for CSX, C-D for NS and E for FEC.

We may be approaching a time when a Northside-Northwest-Westside belt railway would make good sense and industrial might.

Ocklawaha

[pwhitford]

Monday, April 21, 2008 - 4:48 PM EDT

CSX to invest $40M in local rail infrastructure

Jacksonville Business Journal - by Tony Quesada

CSX Corp. plans to spend $40 million to connect its Northeast Jacksonville rail spur to its main line along U.S. 1 so that trains going to and from new container terminals being built or planned don't have to travel through town to its Westside rail yard.

The bypass initiative is linked to the Jacksonville Port Authority's plans to develop an intermodal container transfer facility on the Northside to receive containers from the soon-to-open TraPac Inc. terminal at Dames Point and a proposed Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. terminal nearby. Combined, the two terminals are projected to have a capacity of 1.8 million 20-foot-equivalent units of containerized cargo a year.

CSX (NYSE: CSX) would expect to generate at least two trains a day of about 280 containers each to make a North Main Street bypass economically viable, said Chief Commercial Officer Clarence Gooden, who announced the initiative Monday during a news conference at the authority's Blount Island Marine Terminal.

"Jacksonville lends itself to being one of the first ports of call on the East Coast" for ships coming through the Panama Canal, Gooden said. "Having our interests aligned -- CSX, the port, city and state -- we'll all move in the right direction."

The announcement was heralded by public officials, including Mayor John Peyton, City Council President Daniel Davis and U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown. Getting as many containers off the road as possible is vital to striking a balance between economic development and quality of life, Peyton said.  

Besides an ICTF, CSX's plan depends to some degree on the Florida Legislature approving a plan to buy 61 miles of CSX track in Central Florida for a commuter rail system. CSX plans to use some of the money from selling that line to fund the bypass line, Gooden said.

If the Legislature approves the deal, the sale could close in the fall and the company could have the project going within 18 months, Gooden said. If the sale doesn't go through, CSX's plans would be slowed.
In any event, CSX would not proceed with construction until it is assured the plans for an ICTF are progressing, Gooden said. "We'd like to move in parallel with that."

But CSX will work on acquiring right of way as soon as possible, he said, so that it's ready whenever the port authority is.

For the authority's part, it has received about 15 to 20 responses to a request for interest in investing in port-related infrastructure, including an ICTF, Chief Financial Officer Ron Baker said. From there, the authority will hold public meetings, issue a request for proposal and choose strategic partners.

"The goal," Baker said, "is moving large volumes of containers on rail."

[CS Foltz]

I agree regarding the rail situation but have to point out this is something the Jax Port should have taken into account before Dames Point was even started! After the fact is just going to cost more in the long run but thats neither here nor there. Goal should be 50% or better and I agree with Mr Baker "moving large volumes of containers by rail"! That stuff needs to be rail bound not truck and darn sure not over 9A!