Show-Me Institute_Building Transportation Infrastructure Across Missouri

8/8/2019 Show-Me Institute_Building Transportation Infrastructure Across Missouri

1/53

C ASE STUDY NUMBER 8

executivesummary

This study presents the casefor Missouri promoting more rapideconomic growth by developinga Saint LouisKansas City urbancorridor as a component and modelfor a subsequent, larger KansasCityColumbus, Ohio, urban corridor.In the course of the development ofthese urban corridors, substantially

enhanced transportation infrastructureinvestments would be necessaryin order to realize the opportunitiespresented, and to obtain the bene tsenvisioned. This would involve largeincreases in the capacity of InterstateHighway 70, as well as opening uplarge areas of low-cost land for thelocation of new business ventures nearto the highway developments.

This study also addresses thefederal Corridors of the Futureprogram, as well as addressingproposals that have been made

to add truck-only lanes (TOLs) tothe existing I-70. It also considersalternatives for providing advanced-technology freight transportation(based on enhancements of thecurrent intermodal model), as well ashigh-speed passenger rail servicesthat could be considered if theurban corridor concept were to beimplemented.

Finally, the study elaborates thebene ts of installing an advanced-technology freight railroad, withprovision for passenger services, inthe proposed urban corridor. It furthercontrasts the comparative bene ts andcosts of rail and truck movement offreight, including movement of freightby TOLs. The analyses presentedhere include a discussion of nancingalternatives with a particular emphasis

on the value of tolling, as a meansof ensuring that those who use theinfrastructure disproportionately pay ahigher share of its costs.

building missouris urban and transportationinfrastructures to support

economic developmentBy Jerome J. Day

JANUARY 12, 2011

Jerome Day is a retired university teacher and administrator who spent most of hiscareer at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Baptist University.He holds a B.A. in Physics from the College of the Holy Cross, an M.B.A. from theWharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and all but dissertation for a Ph.D. in

economics at the University of Pennsylvania


2/532

Freight movement within the

urban corridor would be most

economically provided on an

enhanced 21st-century railway running down an

interstatemedian strip.

The major conclusions of this study are: The urban corridor concept is

a valuable paradigm for futureurbanization. It enables andprovides high-quality, high-speed,

localized access to ef cient,effective, and economicalautomobile, truck, transit, and railmovement for both passengersand freight. It discourages urbansprawl, preserves open spaces,and is environmentally friendly.

The urban corridor requires ahigh-speed, high-capacity, androbust multimodal transportation

infrastructure for people andfreight.

The best model for freightmovement is the intermodal model.

Freight movement within theurban corridor would be mosteconomically provided on anenhanced 21st-century railwayrunning down an interstate medianstrip.

Freight movement on the newrailway would be best provided byelectrically propelled transportervehicles, which are, in moreconventional terms, simplyand independently controlledand operated atcars carryingconventional shipping containers.

The intermodal model is bestfurther developed by new current-

day and future-technology railways.These would supplement andreplace in the urban corridormuch of our historic 19th-centuryrailway technology and operationalpractices. This would greatlyincrease freight hauling capacityand reduce costs. Further, it would

reduce the minimum long-haul tripfor intermodal operations to abouthalf of what it is today, for locatinear an intermodal transferpoint. Finally, it would reduce

relative truck density on interstatehighways, thereby reducingcongestion, and improve the traf cenvironment for automobile drivers

Future transportation infrastructureand maintenance could wellbe nanced by public-privatepartnerships (PPPs) and userfees, such as tolls. Gasolinetax revenues are dwindling

with the advent of alternativepower sources for automobiles,and nancing from generalrevenues has grown increasinglydysfunctional.

Almost all of the bene ts ascribedto TOLs would be better realizedby the urban corridor developmentfeaturing, among other bene ts,high-speed, timely movement of

freight by railway to an intermodatransfer point. The one exceptionis that trucks better serve shorter-haul freight movement.

The type of advanced-technologyelectri ed railway proposed in thisstudy would result in a new freighmovement paradigm, and in anincreased volume of rail freightmovement that would revolutionize

modern concepts of rail freightmovement.

Even if the enhanced railwayproposed in this study did notuse electric power, a current-technology railway installed in themedian strip of a new interstatehighway in the urban corridor


3/533

If Missouri wereto invest privateand/or publicmoney intoan integrated infrastructureexpansion acrosscentral Missouri,I believe theentire state would bene t greatly.

would generate freight cost savingsand other bene ts suf cient to justify its installation.

We need to ask key Missouri leadersand policymakers to consider the question

of what kind of urban and economicfuture we want for Missouri, and whetherthe urban corridor, combined with I-70North, is the most cost-effective, mostenvironmentally sensitive, and mostef cient way to achieve this better future.

If we have the will and determinationto achieve this better transportation future,along with a viable plan, then a way willsurely be found to overcome the largest

obstacles namely, nancing.

i. introductionMissouri today is facing the same

economic challenges that it has alwaysfaced: how to produce economicopportunity, growth, and prosperity.However, Missouri is now uniquelypresented with two great opportunitiesto aid in meeting these challenges and

attaining these goals. If Missouri were toinvest private and/or public money into anintegrated infrastructure expansion acrosscentral Missouri, I believe the entire statewould bene t greatly.

The rst opportunity arises from theurbanization that is already occurringalong the corridor running from SaintLouis to Jefferson City and Columbiato Kansas City. This is occurring as a

dynamic component of the larger KansasCityColumbus urban corridor. Thedevelopment of this urban corridor isaligned to the I-70 highway transportationcorridor.

The second opportunity is theredevelopment of the I-70 highway itself.This requires investment that will enable

maximum economic development,concurrently providing a long-term solutionto the overloading and congestion that,during the past decade, have becomeincreasingly evident and wasteful.

During the past several years, therehave been many new developments,including the election of a new nationaladministration and Congress, thearrival of a new Missouri administrationand legislature, and an economicdownturn. Collectively and, perhaps,paradoxically in some respects thesedevelopments present a better long-termenvironment for proposals to address

more comprehensively the transportationinfrastructural needs for handlingautomobiles, trucks, large-scale rail freightmovement, and high-speed intercitypassenger rail service.

Missouri now faces a more favorableenvironment for taking a substantivestance because of the growing recognitionthat the state has serious de cienciesin its economic and transportation

infrastructures. Furthermore, there isgrowing concern that establishing anintegrative approach to transportationand urbanization, as well as ecologicalissues, requires a reformed approachto addressing many of these issues ina comprehensive, integrated manner.The urban corridor paradigm provides aframework for accomplishing this.

Additionally, other trends and events

in the recent past, favoring the railwaydevelopments now being proposed, haveled to increasing awareness of the needto achieve greater economy in the use ofpetroleum fuels. This need stems from thedepletion and rising costs of these fuels,and the adverse externalities of their use.Taking these economic and environmental


4/534

concerns into account, as a policy matter,could encourage us to seek to attract andmake provision to move long-distancefreight and people by new technology,such as modernized rail systems, rather

than seeking to move more freight viahighways.

This study also considers hownancing of the proposals presented may

best be carried out.The proposals in this study are

directed to two opportunities forimprovement. First are the economicdevelopment opportunities that theurban corridor model present as an

alternative to the current urbanizationmodel of expanding concentric rings ofsuburbs around major cities. The secondopportunity involves the more economicaland environmentally friendly transportationservices that an enhanced 21st-centuryrailway infrastructure would provide forfreight and passenger traf c. In neithercase should these proposals be seenas an exercise in centralized urban or

industrial planning. Instead, the proposalsare presented to afford a wider choice ofopportunities for considering what sort ofdevelopments we wish to be afforded tous in the 21st century.

II. The Vitality of Missouri inthe Kansas CityColumbus

Urban Corridor

Models of UrbanizationAt the outset, a few words about urban

corridors: Demographers and economicgeographers generally identify threegreat corridors of people and economicactivity in the United States. The rst todevelop was the BostonWashington,

D.C., corridor and the cities between them,

which is sometimes called the BosWashcorridor. The second corridor to develop

was the ChicagoPittsburgh corridor,connecting the cities in between, including

Detroit. It is known as the ChiPittscorridor. The third to develop was the San

FranciscoSan Diego corridor, including itsinterconnected cities. It is named SanSan.

Among the distinguishing characteristicsof these elongated urban concentrations

of people are the integration of economic

activity in the corridors, and the factthat they are served by substantial

transportation infrastructures. Historically,

the Atlantic and Paci c waterways, aswell as the Great Lakes, have fosteredeconomic development by affording

economical transport of people and goods.Missouri has seen the same effect on the

Mississippi River and the Missouri River.In the latter half of the 19th century, the

development of railroads played the samerole that water transportation infrastructure

played in promoting economic growth and

well-being in the earlier period. In the 20thcentury, highways took over as the primarytransportation infrastructural impetus to

economic development and urbanization.

As a result, we have seen the ongoingdevelopment of these elongated urban

corridors with transportation infrastructures preeminently now highways that

have fostered the interlinking of citiesand economic activities between them.

By providing quicker, higher-capacity,less costly interlinking of people and

businesses along the corridors, thesetransportation infrastructures have greatly

fostered economic growth, jobs, andprosperity. They have, as well, greatly

improved the livelihood of people livingin adjacent rural areas by reducing the

In neither caseshould these

proposals beseen as anexercise in

centralized urbanor industrial

planning. Instead,the proposalsare presented

to afford awider choice of

opportunitiesfor considering

what sort of developmentswe wish to be

afforded to us inthe 21st century.


5/535

As a patternfor economicdevelopment,the vitality of urban corridorscannot beoveremphasized,

partially becausethis pattern hasnot been widely recognized.

costs of delivery of agricultural productionmaterials. Additionally, they have reducedcosts in getting agricultural products to

both expanding local and national urbanmarkets, as well as overseas export

markets.As a pattern for economic

development, the vitality of urban corridorscannot be overemphasized, partially

because this pattern has not been widelyrecognized. Conventionally, most people

think of urbanization as a process in whicha core major city expands outward in all

directions along existing streets and roads,connecting it to other major cities. Suburban

towns develop, and later more distant ex-urbs develop. This might be described as

the agglomeration model of urbanization,wherein successive rings of urbanizationdevelop around major core cities.

However, this pattern of developmenthas several disadvantages. Among thedisadvantages is the tendency to overloadexisting transportation infrastructures,particularly roads and highways. These

tend to be organized along historicalstar-shaped patterns with traf c owingto inner hubs in order to interchange toanother highway out to the destinationpoint. A partial solution to this has beenthe development of ring highwayssurrounding the central city. This was

rst exempli ed by the building ofMassachusetts Route 128 around Bostonin the 1950s, predating the interstate

highway system. Route 128 was originallybuilt in line with what would becomeinterstate standards, with two limited-access traf c lanes in each direction.By the time that it was completed in theearly 1960s, Route 128 had attracted somuch industrial, commercial, and urbandevelopment in its environs that serious

congestion was occurring. This led towidening the route to three lanes. Today,the widened Route 128 has been re-designated as a component of I-95.

The original widening of this

highway attracted so much additionaldevelopment and traf c that of cialsdecided to build a second, outer ring roadaround Boston about 10 miles furtheraway. Today, this is I-495, and it is nowheavily congested with no relief in sight.At this point, it is cautionary to considerwhether Massachusetts double-ringhighway was the best choice to meetthe areas urban development needs. An

elongated BostonWorcesterSpring eldurban corridor westward from Bostonwould probably have better served thedevelopment of the state, particularlyconsidering the extreme urban and

nancial problems that Spring eld andthe western part of that state face today,including the dying of old industries. Butsuch an urbanization corridor could notdevelop while toll-free ring interstates

were opening up new of ce parks andindustrial sites around Boston. Theattractiveness of Spring eld and thewestern part of the state has been furtherreduced by the congested MassachusettsTurnpike (I-90). It is the sole interstate-standard highway to Worcester andSpring eld, and it is heavily tolled withinfrequent interchanges.

This story illustrates that simply

building more ring highways andfurther development of hub-and-spokecon gurations around major cities doesnot really offer a solution to congestionproblems in modern urbanization. It simplyencourages patterns of urbanization andfurther congestion that harm our cities andtheir surrounding areas, making them less


6/53


7/53


8/538

national importance in terms of population,and in terms of industrial and commercialactivities. Substantial transportationinfrastructure already connects these twocities, including the historic, navigable

Missouri River, and rail and road links.Signi cantly, these links include I-70,the successor to U.S. Highway 40, theearly 20th-century successor to the 19th-century National Road. Halfway betweenKansas City and Saint Louis, and centralto the corridor, are the Jefferson City seatof state government and the University ofMissouri in Columbia.

Furthermore, having all of these

assets within one state makes itimmeasurably easier to promote thedevelopment of a Kansas CitySaint Louiscorridor as a precursor and model of thegreater KanCol corridor.

Accomplishing this, or at least gettingstarted on the further development of thesecorridors and our way to these goals, isnot as dif cult or as costly as might beimagined. Two subsequent sections of this

study present some suggestions for howthis solution could become a reality.

iii. i-70, thetransportation

backboneinfrastructureof the kancol

corridor

Investment inTransportation

Infrastructure: HistoricalSurvey

Most people view highways not asinvestments, but simply as a way to get

someplace. Many Americans view taxspending for road maintenance suchas building bridges or repairing potholes or for building new highways as anecessary evil to alleviate congestion

and failing infrastructure. However, thiswas not always the prevailing mindset.In times past, to a much greater extentthan today, people have seen buildingnew transportation infrastructure asan investment in the future, whichestablishes a foundation for subsequenteconomic growth and development.Such investments satisfy some of thenecessary conditions for developing

markets, creating jobs, lowering costs,and promoting prosperity. People needto regain the sense that expendituresfor transportation infrastructure canaccomplish much more productivepurposes. These expenditures mustnot be conceived as solely or primarilyintended to address problems ofcongestion and failing bridges andhighways. Although we do need

investments in infrastructure that willalleviate congestion and make repairs,more importantly, the investments mustadd substantially increased new capacityand relieve stress on existing facilities.Still more vital, we should attempt to mathese investments in a manner that opensthe way to new and substantially greatereconomic development and prosperity, inconjunction with promoting a bene cial

model of urbanization.There are many imaginative historical

examples of making such massivepublic investments in transportationinfrastructure, for achieving development,growth, and prosperity. It is importantto understand both the economic andoverall impacts that investments in

Although it may seem that

Missouri haslittle to bene t

economically from traf c that simply transits

Missouri,such traf c isnevertheless

important because it buildsMissouris image

as a place at the crossroads,

and a center around which

trade, commerce,

and peoplecongregate.


9/539

Although we doneed investmentsin infrastructurethat will alleviatecongestion and make repairs,more importantly,the investmentsmust add substantially increased new capacity and relieve stress on

existing facilities.

transportation infrastructure have had onthe development of the United States.If we choose to do so, we can maketransportation infrastructural investmentsin a way that would convey multiple

bene ts extending well beyond the directtransportation bene ts.

The initial historical example is thedevelopment of the National Road, alsoknown as the Cumberland Road, rstauthorized by Congress in 1806 to runwestward from Cumberland, Md. Althoughin 1825 Congress authorized constructionto continue to Jefferson City, Mo., the roadonly reached as far as Vandalia, Ill., by

1839. At that time, allotted federal fundingran out and further construction ceased.The advent of railroads lessened interestin completing the road toJefferson City.

Another early example ofinfrastructure investment having asigni cant impact on the development ofthe nation is the building of the Erie Canalacross New York state. Completed in

1825, it was at the time derisively knownby skeptics as Gov. Dewitt Clintons BigDitch. This canal provided inexpensive,water-borne transportation linking theentire Great Lakes region to the HudsonRiver, New York City, and the AtlanticOcean. It made that city the businesscapital of the nation. It was the primaryinfrastructural investment that led to theChiPitts urban corridor development.

Another example is the massivepublic/private transportation infrastructureinvestment made in the building of theTrans-Continental Railroad from Omaha toSan Francisco immediately after the CivilWar. This was not an investment madeto meet existing transportation needs. Itwas made because the existence of the

railroad would encourage the economicdevelopment of the western United Statesand thereby facilitate the movement ofpeople and goods, thus generating theprosperity that would validate its building.

A further example is the massivepublic investment in the building of thePanama Canal. This investment wasmade to reduce transportation costsbetween the United States east and westcoasts and to realize an opportunity tofoster the economic development aswell as world status of the nation.

Other examples can be brie ymentioned. The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, for more than 100 years,has been making public investments insupport of navigation on the MississippiRiver and its tributaries. Additionally,it has made public investments in theAtlantic Inter-Coastal Waterway andthe Gulf Inter-Coastal Waterway. Otherexamples of public investments intransportation infrastructure include theU.S. highway system of the 1920s, theinterstate highway system of the 1950s,and the Federal Aviation Air Traf c ControlSystem.

Decline in MissourisHistoric Role

It is also important to realize theimpact that the aforementioned historicalinvestments had in shaping Missouriscentral role, and later its decline, in the

development of the nations transportationinfrastructure.

Missouri established its initial gatewayrole by providing for water-borne accesswestward on the Missouri River, fortraf c delivered to it from the Ohio andMississippi rivers. It further provided theheads of the overland Santa Fe Trail,


10/5310

Missouri established itsinitial gateway

role by providingfor water-borne

access westward on the Missouri River, for traf c

delivered to it from the Ohio and Mississippi rivers.

and the Oregon and California Trails.Additionally, through the developmentof the original National Road towardMissouri, and the National Roads fullembodiment in U.S. Highway 40, Missouri

supported the preeminent coast-to-coasthighway.

Subsequently, Missouri has seen itsrole and recognition diminish.

Construction of the Erie Canal shiftednorthward the original traf c route to theWest. The major route traveled acrossNew York State and bordering the GreatLakes along what has become theChiPitts corridor. With the subsequent

development of the railroads in theperiod before the Civil War, the GreatLakes northern line was predominant,greatly reinforcing the ChiPitts corridordevelopment. This northern line ofdevelopment was reinforced so much thatwhen the Trans-Continental Railroad wasbuilt, it was logically seen as an extensionof the railroads from Chicago, acrossexisting railroads in Illinois and Iowa to

Omaha and on to San Francisco.The earlier overland trail routes from

the Kansas City area were abandoned,as well as the Pony Express route fromSaint Joseph. Although in the 1920s theNational Road was extended acrossMissouri as U.S. Highway 40 to SanFrancisco, when the interstate systemwas developed, the new coast-to-coasthighway became I-80, which follows the

line of the interstate-standard toll roadspreviously extending from New York toChicago. I-80 then follows the line of therailroads across Iowa and the Trans-Continental Railroad to San Francisco.

I-70, however, the successor to thecoast-to-coast U.S. Highway 40 primaryroute, does not extend to the West Coast.

It ends at an insigni cant junction withnorth-south I-15 in the deserts of Utah.

Justi cation of Investments Return on Investment

The de ning characteristic of allof the above-cited investments is thatthey were not made primarily to addressexisting transportation problems. Theywere made to better realize opportunitiesfor economic growth and development,and in anticipation of the bene tsthat would ow from them in terms ofagricultural development, commerce,industrial development, and general well-being. The investments were made toestablish conditions promotive of futuregrowth and prosperity, and to realizemajor opportunities to improve economiclivelihood.

As will be elaborated upon in thesubsequent sections of this study, itis neither timely nor within the scopeof this study to deal substantively with

nancing aspects of the urban corridor

development proposals advanced herein.However, I suggest that these proposalsentail an investment in something muchgreater and bene cial than simpleexpenditures for maintenance, rebuilding,and congestion alleviation. We would bemaking an investment in our economicfuture, and yielding much greaterbene ts beyond the transportation realm.Consequently, I would be remiss not to

address nancial criteria for assessingwhether a proposed nancial investmentis well-analyzed and considered.

Typically, nancial evaluations ofinvestment proposals center on suchconcepts as cost/bene t analysis, the ratereturn on the investment, the discountedcash ows stemming from the investment


11/53


12/5312

Although it may be rather dif cult

to quantify thenon- nancial returns from

investments intransportationinfrastructure,

the real bene tsat the personal level are large,

and many peopleare ready to pay

comparatively high rates to

obtain the personal bene ts

that superior

highways provideto them.

Yet so many people want to use thishighway and pay such tolls that I-95 inNew Hampshire has four lanes in eachdirection for its entire length. New Jerseyalso has high tolls on the New Jersey

Turnpike, and a large number of lanesin both directions. For a trip spanningthe New Jersey Turnpikes 148 miles,the toll amounts to 6 cents per mile.Equivalently, a gasoline tax of $1.21 pergallon would be required to raise thesame revenue from drivers. In California,State Route 91, for a 10-mile length, hastoll rates varying hourly from a low of 13cents per mile to a high of 99 cents per

mile. Also in California, State Route 73,at peak times, charges almost 31 centsper mile for an 18-mile length of road.

To summarize, although it may berather dif cult to quantify the non- nancialreturns from investments in transportationinfrastructure, the real bene ts at thepersonal level are large, and manypeople are ready to pay comparativelyhigh rates to obtain the personal bene ts

that superior highways provide to them.Having said that, it is nonetheless quiteclear that they are not willing to payfor such investments from general taxrevenues or gasoline taxes. The reasonfor this difference is quite obvious:People are willing to pay for what theyuse if and when they use it. They arenot willing to pay for what they seldomuse or perceive others using more and

obtaining differential bene t to their owndisadvantage.

In the nal analysis, most people,but not all, inherently perceive the returnon investment in interstate highwaytransportation infrastructures as yieldingbene ts far greater than the costs. Butbecause the bene ts accrue unevenly

to different individuals, most people arenot willing to socialize the costs of suchinvestments further. They prefer for thoseto whom the greater share of the bene tsaccrue to shoulder a greater share of

the costs. This is a major reason for theresistance to increased gasoline taxesto fund repair and development of theinterstate system.

This question of who pays what andhow much naturally leads into a furtherdiscussion of how to nance the buildingand operation of the transportationinfrastructure that must be put in place tosupport the urban corridor. However, this

discussion will be deferred until a latersection of this study.

Missouris Experience Comparison of U.S.Highway 63 and U.S.

Highway 65In Missouri, we can see speci c

examples of the effects of demographic

shifts and changes in economic activityand prosperity happening over the past20 to 30 years along the U.S. Highway63 and 65 corridors between I-70and the Iowa state line. Signi cantly,these changes are directly related totransportation infrastructure investments,or the lack thereof.

Along Highway 65, the towns ofLineville, Mercer, and Spickard have

been bypassed, and show few signs ofincreasing economic activity. The townsof Trenton and Princeton also show fewsigns of increasing prosperity. Chillicotheand Carrolton appear to be prosperingsomewhat more, but not especiallyso. By comparison, along Highway63, Kirksville, Macon, Moberly, and


13/531

People are willingto pay for what

they use if and when they useit. They are not willing to pay for what they seldomuse or perceiveothers using moreand obtainingdifferential bene t to their owndisadvantage.

rural areas nearby are prosperous anddeveloping rapidly.

There are certainly many disparatefactors involved in accounting for theeconomic differences along these two

highway corridors. But undoubtedly,a major factor is that Highway 65 hasremained as it was engineered earlyin the last century: a two-lane with, bytodays standards, low capacity. It is adif cult highway for commercial traf c.No one would likely locate a major job-producing venture along this highway.Highway 63, on the other hand, hasbeen mostly upgraded to a four-lane

interstate-standard highway, with adivided center strip. Which came rst:the modern highway, or the economicprosperity that attracted people andbusinesses to locate along this corridor,necessitating highway development? Intruth, they have progressed concurrently.Unquestionably, however, putting intoplace a modern highway infrastructure hasbeen a condition as well as a cause for the

economic development that is occurring soremarkably along the Highway 63 corridor.

IV. The Way Forward:

The KanCol andKansas CitySaint Louis

Urban Corridors

UnderstandingUrban Corridors

In considering how best to go aboutbuilding these urban corridors, threeimportant points need to be kept in mind atthe outset.

The rst point is that these urbancorridors already exist as geographicaland demographic entities aligned alongI-70. They are currently developing,albeit rather slowly, as well-organized

corridors but do not display signi cantintegration as economic entities. Thus, itis possible to speak of them as existingentities, although unrecognized andunderdeveloped. It is also appropriate tospeak of urban corridors as somethingto be identi ed and further developed tobetter realize the bene ts that accrue.These bene ts include those arisingfrom using the urban corridor concept to

better organize our thoughts and actionsin economic development matters. In thisstudy, as the occasion demands, urbancorridors are alternatively construed inconceptual terms, or as currently existing(albeit underdeveloped as such) realities.Otherwise, they will more frequently betreated as something to be developedbecause the bene ts that accrue from theurban corridor concept are not currently

being much realized.The second point to note is that further

developing the Kansas CityColumbus(KanCol) urban corridor would be muchmore signi cant in overall economicimpact. However, because of its size andthe various states and other interestsinvolved, promoting it and actually makingsigni cant progress in developing it wouldbe more dif cult to achieve early on.

Moving forward with the developmentof the Kansas CitySaint Louis urbancorridor would be much easier becauseof the natural advantages that Missourialready has for this development, as havebeen previously cited. Consequently, theremainder of this study will primarily beconcerned with how to get started with the


14/5314

Although urbancorridors are

certainly aneconomic

reality, they also represent astate of mind in

certain respects.It is time to moveforward with our

thinking in termsof urban corridor

concepts.

Missouri portion of the KanCol corridor.Progress on development of this latterportion would serve as an incentive andmodel for the development of the fullKanCol corridor.

The third point to keep in mindis that initially moving forward with aKansas CitySaint Louis urban corridorconcept does not really cost much. Thisinitial impetus, although only a startingpoint, could ultimately affect economicconditions, unleashing real economicforces in the private sector that wouldmake possible further investmentsto achieve the growth and prosperity

inherent in the urban corridor developmentconcept. Nevertheless, as the nextsection of this study makes clear, a fullexploitation of the urban corridor concept,for all of the bene ts that accrue from it,would require massive investment in theI-70 transportation infrastructure in theKansas CitySaint Louis urban corridor.

In summary, although urban corridorsare certainly an economic reality, theyalso represent a state of mind in certainrespects. It is time to move forward withour thinking in terms of urban corridorconcepts.

Steps to Be TakenFor current purposes, it is suf cient

to realize that in moving forward with thedevelopment of the Kansas CitySaintLouis urban corridor, promotion is the vital

starting point. Through public relations,educating the citizenry, and relatedmeasures, we can promote the conceptthat Missourians come together andactively pursue a more uni ed social andeconomic community, as well as a newmodel of urbanization. It would involvea cooperative, coordinated, integrated

interlinking of the people, communities,and economic activity of those wholive along a rapidly developing urbancorridor into a larger social and economiccommunity. It would transcend, but not

otherwise affect, existing county, town, orother civil or governmental boundaries or jurisdictions, except to urge people livingwithin them to work together more closeland collaboratively. This is not economicplanning; rather, it is a means of betterenabling and empowering community andeconomic development and well-being, aswell as addressing existing urbanizationand roadway congestion problems.

Obviously, a great amount of publiceducation would need to be undertaken inorder to generate support for this conceptBefore people will support it, they mustunderstand it in all of its aspects. Thiswould require extensive analytical cost/bene t studies and further comparison ofthe corridor model of urban developmentwith the current agglomeration model.Comparative environmental studies would

be needed, along with further studies ofthe comparative impacts of both modelson nearby and distant rural areas, and onsmaller cities and towns. Further studiesof the potential impact on property valuewould be necessary.

Other than these public analyticalstudies, which are aimed at betterinforming people about the corridorconcept, it would be necessary to bring

closer together those people along thecorridor who are already promotingrelated economic development. This ismost important. Relevant to this are manybusiness groups, fraternal groups, civicorganizations, chambers of commerce,an array of community and governmentalorganizations, as well as individuals.


15/531

For current purposes, it

is suf cient to realize that in movingforward with thedevelopment of the KansasCity Saint Louisurban corridor,

promotion isthe vital starting

point.

These all involve key people who areactively working to improve economicconditions in their various communitiesand circles of interest and acquaintance.By and large, many of these now direct

their efforts largely at bettering theirrespective local communities.

When it comes to attracting businessinvestment, such efforts by local boosterscan give the appearance of crosspurposes among those who could presentthemselves more strategically. Thosepromoting investment and economicdevelopment could present themselves

rst as part of the Missouri community and

economic environment, then the broadurban corridor community and economicenvironment, and nally as part of theirsmaller local community and economicenvironment. These local connectionscan be integral parts of a larger, closely-knit, economically integrated, cooperatingwhole.

Working Collaboratively as

a Region and StateIf, for example, Saint Louis and

Kansas City were seen to be competingfor the same investment project by alarge national or multinational company,they would likely each be perceived aspromoting themselves at the expense, andto the detriment, of the other. This wouldbe more likely to produce a lose/lose/lose outcomefor Saint Louis, Kansas City,

and the entire state. On the other hand, ifboth cities were to encourage a companyto invest and locate in Missouri, then topromote investment and location along theKansas CitySaint Louis corridor, and, asa subsidiary matter, to invest and locatein their own city, a successful outcome forMissouri, the corridor, and one city or the

other is much more likely to occur. For thecity that did not win well, they probablywould not have won anyway without widercollaboration. But, in a broader sense,the successes and increased prosperity

of any local community contributes tothe betterment of the whole. For the citywhose bid for the investment did notsucceed, they could look forward to betterprospects in the next case, because inan urban corridor atmosphere of mutualcommunity support, their prospects wouldbe enhanced by the efforts of the broadercommunity.

Prompting people to work togethermore cooperatively and collaborativelycan be achieved by actually bringing thekey people into more frequent interactionwith each other in their daily work, inattending conventions, sharing booths attrade shows and investment seminars,or traveling together in foreign trademissions. The list could go on and on.However, the idea is clear: Missourianscould substantially bene t if they ndways to demonstrate that leaders alongthe corridor are working cooperativelyand collaboratively to improve economicconditions for the betterment of newinvestor members of the corridorcommunity, as well as for the currentmembers of the corridor community.

In summary, at this initial stage,Missourians face an opportunity to move

forward with urban corridor development.Getting Missouris key players ineconomic development and transportationdevelopment together could be the rststep to begin promoting the urban corridorconcept and justifying the investmentin transportation infrastructure that itrequires.


16/5316

Missourianscould

substantially bene t if they

nd ways todemonstrate that

leaders alongthe corridor are working

cooperatively and collaboratively

to improveeconomic

conditions for the betterment

of new investor members of the corridor

community, aswell as for thecurrent members

of the corridor community.

about 70 miles eastward from Kansas Citand a few miles westward and eastwardof Jefferson City. This alternative woulddraw traf c away from the existing I-70,thereby alleviating congestion. However,

construction between Saint Louisand Jefferson City would be relativelyexpensive because of unfavorably hillyterrain, and would probably requirebypassing many towns. Also, the routinginto southwest Saint Louis would beproblematic for through traf c to and fromIllinois.

A third alternative would bethe building of a new I-70 highway,

presumably along an open eld pathwaynorth of the existing highway. Again, itwould probably need to be far enoughnorthward to go through open landavoiding the substantially higher landacquisition costs closer to the existingI-70. It would presumably also afford direinterstate highway services to a stringof towns across the state that are nowsomewhat more distant from I-70. Finally,

and most importantly, at its interchangesand frontage roads, a new I-70 wouldopen tens of thousands of acres ofrelatively low-cost land for industrial andcommercial development. Such landwould be extremely attractive for businessdevelopment because of its ready accessto a new interstate-standard highway.Equally, hundreds of thousands of acres olow-cost land would be made much more

attractive for urban development.Although MoDOT merits

commendation for its efforts to elicit publinput into the decisions about how toaddress problems with I-70, it appearsthat an economically inferior alternative,to substantially widen and rebuild theexisting I-70, has won out. I perceive

v. the way forward: the i-70transportationinfrastructure

for urbancorridor economic

development

Recent Planning for I-70A few years ago, the Missouri

Department of Transportation (MoDOT)initiated a public consultation processconcerning what to do about I-70,particularly the ever-increasingcongestion. Three alternatives were putforward for consideration.

One alternative would be simply toincrease the capacity of I-70 by wideningit to three lanes or more throughout itsfull length. This would require substantialrebuilding of overpasses, bridges, andinterchanges, as well as the roadway

itself. This would all have to be donewhile the existing highway traf c hadto be accommodated, causing furthercongestion in many already congestedlocations while construction was inprogress in that area. Nevertheless, thisalternative has advantages in that it couldbe implemented gradually as fundingpermitted, upgrades could rst be put inplace in the most congested areas, and it

could be readily seen by the public as aneffort to do something immediately aboutthe worst problem areas.

A second alternative would beto upgrade U.S. Highway 50 to thefull interstate standard throughout itsentire length. Highway 50 is currentlyapproximately interstate-standard for


17/531

It is well knownthat in Missouri,

and in the entirecountry, it isincreasingly dif cult to nd money to even

properly maintainexisting highwaysand bridges, muchless build new ones.

that this outcome is the result of twoconsiderations.

First, as MoDOT is charged with

building and maintaining the stateroadways, it is constrained to nd the

most cost-effective engineering solution toproblems that present themselves, such

as I-70 congestion. It is neither explicit norimplied that MoDOT has a responsibility

to look into matters of urbanization policyor economic development in making suchhighway development decisions; these

are the responsibility of others in thestate government. Yet these matters are

so closely intertwined with transportation

infrastructure development that suboptimaldecisions are likely to result from not takingall of the relevant issues into consideration.

The second consideration leading tothe decision not to pursue the building of anew I-70, I am sure, is the matter of cost.It is well known that in Missouri, and inthe entire country, it is increasingly dif cultto nd money to even properly maintainexisting highways and bridges, much less

build new ones. The interstate system,largely designed and built more than 50years ago, is overloaded and much of itis worn out. So long as it is thought thatroad building and maintenance must be

nanced by taxes and fuel taxes, at that the situation is only likely to deterioratein the current environment. Many factorscontribute to this, but it is not my intentionto address them in this study, except to

note one important point.If discussions about how to

ensure future growth and developmentopportunities and, in particular, highwaymaintenance, repair, and congestionmatters are dominated at the outset bycost and nance issues, there might neverbe any progress. We must rst consider

what our future infrastructure needs mightbe without undue regard to cost and

nancing. If we nd a development thatis suf ciently attractive and desirable, wecan then study whether it is affordable.

For current purposes, it is suf cient to saythat if we nd that an enhanced urbancorridor developed around an improvedtransportation infrastructure is suf cientlyattractive and desirable, we might then

nd a way to nance the investment,either publicly, privately, or in combination.In order to launch such a massiveundertaking, we must consider futurepossibilities and which options will lead

to improvement, carefully identifying themost effective way forward.

Proposals for New I-70Transportation Corridors

What exactly is being proposed as thenew transportation infrastructure for theSaint LouisKansas City urban corridor?

Let us consider the traf c volumealong I-70 today, and include the

natural traf c demand growth thatcan be expected in the future, evenif the urban corridor concept is notsupported. Additionally, let us includethe much greater traf c demand thatwould be induced by the economicdevelopment resulting from urban corridorimplementation. The U.S. highwaysystem, which began developmentin the 1920s, was overwhelmed by

the time of the 1950s. Similarly, theinterstate highway system designedin the 1950s is overwhelmed in manyareas today. It appears that any newhighway development tends to becomeoverwhelmed within about 40 years.Therefore, I shall take approximately 40years as a planning horizon.


18/53


19/531

With respect tobuilding the new

I-70N throughopen country, theland acquisitioncosts may berelatively low.The entire lengthwould present thousandsof attractive,relatively low-cost building areas well served by superior transportationfacilities.

With respect to building the newI-70N through open country, the landacquisition costs may be relativelylow. The entire length would presentthousands of attractive, relatively low-

cost building areas well served bysuperior transportation facilities. It wouldbe attractive for businesses seekingnew production sites and of ce parks.Near the interchanges and along thefrontage roads would be thousands oflow-cost business building sites withclose access to interstate-standardtransportation. Additionally, the buildingof I-70N and the nearby businesses it

would attract would make the inexpensiveland near the highway attractive forurban development. The business andcommercial development, together withthe residential development that wouldspring up, attracted by the businesses,would constitute the building of the urbancorridor.

On the other hand, the alternativeof simply increasing the capacity of the

existing I-70 would only attract more traf cto that sole roadway between KansasCity and Saint Louis, shortly creating newcongestion problems, and failing to createthe much greater private investment andeconomic development that I-70N wouldproduce.

Can there be any doubt that if thealternative of simply upgrading the existingI-70 were implemented, soon after the

expansion is completed we would againbe faced with renewed congestion andneeds to alleviate it? At that time, theproblems would be even more intractablebecause of the increased urbanizationthat would have occurred alongside theexisting I-70. Finally, we would haveforegone the much greater economic

growth and development that would haveoccurred in the interim if the low-cost landalong an I-70N, along with its associatedfreight and passenger rail infrastructures,had been more readily accessible to

private investment and development.Getting started with the building

of I-70N at this stage would require asubstantial public education campaign topresent and justify the reasons for goingforward with this project. In large measure,this would require the same initial effortsas described above for moving forwardwith the urban corridor concept.

vi. corridorsof the future

programOne of the more signi cant recent

transportation development events isthe approval announcement by theFederal Highway Administration of theI-70 Corridors of the Future Phase IIApplication,4 a joint proposal of the

Departments of Transportation of Missouri,Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio for Interstate70 Dedicated Truck Lanes. The dedicatedtruck-only lanes (TOLs) are envisionedto be the dual-use (automobile andtruck) lanes of the existing I-70. The plansuggests the building of new dedicatedautomobile lanes alongside, but separatedfrom, the existing I-70 lanes, whichwould become TOLs. The proposal was

advanced under the leadership of theIndiana Department of Transportation, andapproved for initial federal funding totaling$5 million.

The proposal is to rebuild theexisting I-70 highway in situ , along withits overpasses and interchanges, whileit remains in operation, and to build


20/5320

At this point, weface the decision

of whether it isbetter to move

forward withaddressing

the congestion problems on

I-70 with acompletely new

urban corridor multimodal

transportationinfrastructure, or

installing truck-only lanes in

the existing I-70 corridor.

additional traf c lanes alongside it forautomobiles. This plan is at considerablevariance with what I have proposed in theearlier sections of this study regarding theurban corridor concept and a new I-70N

transportation infrastructure includingprovision for rail and freight passengerservices.

At this point, we face the decision ofwhether it is better to move forward withaddressing the congestion problems onI-70 with a completely new urban corridormultimodal transportation infrastructure, orinstalling TOLs in the existing I-70 corridor.This involves looking at the Corridors

of the Future Phase II Application moreclosely, in comparison with the alternativeof moving more freight by rail. Theremainder of this study will be largelydevoted to this topic, along with nancingissues. I shall now address the the relativemerits of the urban corridor concept, asproposed in the preceding sections of thisstudy, in comparison to the TOL proposal.Determining which would be the better

course of action will ultimately require thatwe analyze the ef ciency of increasedmovement of freight by enhanced railrather than by relying on TOLs.

The introduction of the Corridors ofthe Future Phase II Application states:5

Our shared goal is to reducecongestion and improve safety onthe Corridor and, thereby, improvecommerce and expand economic

growth to our region. Our vision isto accomplish this by developinga dedicated truck-only lane (TOL)Corridor along the approximate800 miles of I-70 that crosses ourfour states.

Overall, with the exception of onemajor aspect, the proposal embodies

well-justi ed, well-documented, and well-presented statements of the needs, majordesign aspects, and implementation planfor moving forward with the developmentIt also includes many statistical tables

and gures in support of its arguments.However, although TOLs are the proposedsolution, and the proposal documents theuse of limited-access lanes elsewhere inthe country, most of the examples citedare high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanesto encourage carpooling. Further, forreasons that the remainder of this studywill make clear, it is dubious that the TOconcept is the most cost-effective design.

This is especially true when one takesinto consideration the broader economicbene ts to be achieved through the urbancorridor concept, as outlined in previoussections of this study.

Additionally, to the extent that beneare sought through reduced mixing of carand trucks on the same roadway, there isanother design alternative that seems notto have been considered. The motivating

arguments for the TOL design proposalare relief from congestion, and safetybene ts deriving from the separation oflarge-truck freight from automobiles. Thealternative of separating long-haul freightfrom trucks through relatively greateruse of railways seems not to have beenconsidered.

Finally, the TOL proposal presentsthe potential for technological advances

that may be forthcoming with a new,modernized truck highway infrastructure,such as high speed electronicallycontrolled vehicle operation, truck trainsthat move cabs between yards on anautomated conveyance system wherethey are assembled and dissembled,etc.6 However, many of the same


21/532

For reasons that the remainder of

this study will make clear, it is dubious that the truck-only-lane concept isthe most cost-effective design.

advantages are potentially more readilyand economically realizable with a new,modernized railway infrastructure, eitherinstead of or in addition to TOLs.

The proposal document states that

the proposed truck-only lane paradigmoffers the prospect that the project canprovide a corridor of such length andbreadth as to change Americas national interstate transportation model (emphasisadded). 7 The following paragraph statesthat the vision of this project is the visionof the future, providing economies of scalerequired to in uence, and potentially shiftfreight movements across the Midwest

and the United States (emphasis added). 8The document additionally comments

on the 800-mile length of the proposedTOLs: 9

This distance will, in somecases, make the Corridoran attractive, cost-effectivealternative to rail, enabling railloads to be more cost-effectivelytransferred to trucks in Kansas

City or Columbus, bypassingthe signi cant rail congestion inChicago that is a detriment totime-sensitive shipments.

The above statements indicatethat such a development would likelyculminate in a change in our countrysfuture freight movement as momentousas the decision in the 1950s to allowtrucks onto the new interstate highway

system. The document often asserts thatit is not a good idea, for safety and otherreasons, to mix automobile traf c andtruck traf c in the shared usage of thesame highway. In retrospect, we may askwhether we made a mistake in earlieryears in providing inducements to shiftfreight from railroads to highway trucking

but that is likely to lead to a fairly sterilediscussion. It would be similarly sterileto discuss whether a mistake was madewhen we built the interstate highwaysystem in such a fashion that it resulted

in the agglomeration model of urbangrowth. The situation as it exists nowpresents the question, How do we bestmove forward? More speci cally, the realquestion before us is whether it is betterto try to move relatively more freight onan enhanced highway or on an enhancedrailroad infrastructure.

Finally, the Corridors of the FuturePhase II Application places great

emphasis on the distaste and discomfortthat automobile drivers have for sharinga highway with trucks. But the idea ofTOLs is oversold as a solution, in thatsmaller trucks would still be allowed inthe automobile lanes. More importantly,it would still be the case that all types oftrucks would drive along with automobileson most parts of the interstate system.Trucks sharing the road only becomes

a problem when congestion gets out ofhand and when the proportion of truckson the highway in relation to automobilesgets so high that automobile drivers beginto feel hemmed in. The problem is nottrucks, per se. Rather, the problem iscongestion and lack of highway capacity.The answer is a relative reduction in thenumber of trucks on highway lanes sharedwith automobiles, but not necessarily the

introduction of TOLs.It is not exactly clear why the four

state Departments of Transportationhave chosen this particular approach.There are probably a variety of reasonsof greater or lesser appeal to the variousdepartments. In Missouris case, itseems clear that MoDOT is wary of


22/5322

The problemis not trucks,

per se. Rather,the problem is

congestion and lack of highway

capacity.

potential problems in nancing theproject, in the face of widespread publicdistaste for tolling of transportationfacilities. It would presumably be easierto obtain legislative acquiescence to

tolling of trucks to aid the nancingof a truck-only highway. Yet, as willbe addressed later in this study,implementing selective user fees in theform of modern electronic tolling is theonly broadly feasible and equitable long-term solution to the highway- nancingconundrum. In Indianas case, thereremains great interest in extending I-69to the Mexican border. If the I-70 TOL

proposal is implemented, it would greatlypromote Indianas case for extending ofI-69 and making Indianapolis the hub fora developing truck-only highway system.

In any case, it is apparent that,although the state Departments ofTransportation generally have aresponsibility with respect to railroadswithin their respective states, they have amuch larger constituency in the trucking

industry than in the railroad industry. But isthis justi cation for providing the truckingindustry competitive support over andabove the railroad industry? The UnitedStates already make this choice once,in the 1950s, when sanctioning the ideathat the interstate system would be usedto shift freight away from railroads, withall of the ensuing complications that arenow leading to proposals for freight-only

highways.To summarize brie y, the Corridors of

the Future Phase II Application presents asolid case to fund enhanced infrastructurefor freight movement. But the main pointsthat are made for providing TOLs on thehighway apply equally well for enhancedrail facilities. Most of the bene ts of

TOLs are better achievable by moving agreater portion of freight with an improvetechnology railroad infrastructure. This,incidentally, is the same situation thatoccurs with respect to freight movement

by rail and high-speed passenger rail.Again, similarly, there are complementaryas well as contrary issues between railmovement of freight and high-speedpassenger rail. There are also such issuesbetween truck and rail movement offreight. The challenge is to determine themost appropriate or optimized balances,partially by ensuring level playing

elds for all participants, including thebroader public, while securing maximumenvironmental, economic, and socialbene t.

I shall now examine more conciselythe nature and relative bene ts of movingmore freight by rail rather than more bylong-haul trucking.

VI. OPPORTUNITIESFOR THE FUTURE

IntroductionThis section presents a broad

treatment of the comparative bene tsthat would be offered by an enhancedrailroad infrastructure in the urban corridodevelopment proposed in this study.Good references for gaining a deeperunderstanding of key issues in developingan integrative approach to nationaltransportation infrastructure includeFuture Options for the National SystemInterstate and Defense Highways 10 andTransportation, Invest in America: Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report.11


23/532

With regard to possible future

eventualities,we all know that there is increasing

public concernabout all typesand sourcesof pollution,

particularly with respect totransportation, air,water, and noise

pollution.

EnvironmentalOpportunities

Any project, such as those discussedin this study, must satisfy variouslegislatively mandated requirements.It is not the purpose of this study to gointo detailed speci cs. This subject isadequately covered in the Corridorsof the Future Phase II Application4

document, at least insofar as currentrequirements are concerned. However,it is only reasonable with respect tothe future to adopt a planning stancethat anticipates future developmentsin this area, especially when such canbe done at little or no alternativeadditional costs.

With regard to possible futureeventualities, we all know that there isincreasing public concern about all typesand sources of pollution, particularly withrespect to transportation, air, water, andnoise pollution. There are widespreadand con icting views about the extentto which the byproducts of internal

combustion engines fueled by petroleumor other carbon products contribute to airpollution, and especially whether this is asigni cant factor affecting global climatechange. Indeed, there are even differingviews about whether carbon dioxideshould be considered an air pollutant. Yetthere is an increasing outcry for reducingour carbon footprint and for introducingcarbon taxes.

In any case, it is well recognizedthat, per ton-mile of freight delivered,using technologies currently in place, railtransport of freight produces substantiallyless air pollution. Not only that, butbecause alternative power sources(see the sub-section later in this studyabout electric power) are less likely

to be available to trucking, rail freightcan become even more ef cient andenvironmentally friendly.

Water pollution is not a signi cantreason for preferring rail freight movement

to truck movement, except for minormatters. The wearing down of tiresleaves rubber residue on the highway,which subsequently becomes part of therainwater runoff. Also, the petroleum-based (asphalt) surfaces on some ofthe roadways, through wear, become apollutant. Finally, where snow and iceare a winter problem, the use of variousmelting compounds (primarily salt) is

a cause for concern to some people.One reason for co-locating a railway inthe median of a highway is that it betterenables noise control measures to beimplemented.

What may be taken as the nalword on this issue is contained in theAmerican Association of State andTransportation Of cials (AASHTO)Transportation, Invest in America:

Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report: ...the railroad industry is relatively benignto the environment, including loweremissions per ton-mile than trucking ... 12

Further, it details: 13

The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency estimates thatfor every ton-mile, a typical truckemits roughly three times morenitrogen oxides and particulates

than a locomotive. Relatedstudies suggest that trucks emitsix to 12 times more pollutantsper ton-mile than do railroads,depending on the pollutantmeasured. According to theAmerican Society of MechanicalEngineers, 2.5 million fewer


24/5324

Where we can doso at little or noadditional cost,

we should try toadopt coursesof action that are otherwise

analytically and economically

more bene cial,especially when they

are also moreenvironmentally

friendly.

tons of carbon dioxide would beemitted into the air annually if 10percent of intercity freight nowmoving by highway were shiftedto rail.

This is not the appropriate occasion forcomprehensively analyzing the meritsor lack thereof for any of these issues.Nevertheless, where we can do so at littleor no additional cost, we should try toadopt courses of action that are otherwiseanalytically and economically morebene cial, especially when they are alsomore environmentally friendly.

This will be my stance in considering

whether Missouri should, as a publicpolicy matter, seek to move more long-haul freight by an enhanced truck-onlyhighway infrastructure, or by an enhancedrailway infrastructure.

Enhanced RailwayOpportunities

Any new major development in theI-70 corridor should also embody an

extra-wide median separator for possiblefuture expansion, underground utilities,such as optical ber cables, and possiblefuture high-speed passenger and/or freightservices via railway, monorail, or whateveris developed in the future.

The current Corridors of the FuturePhase II Application does not makeprovision for this, and probably couldnot have such a provision made without

relocating the TOL provision outside of thecurrent I-70 alignment, although strongeconomic bene ts would accrue from suchrelocation.

Interest in alleviating problems alongthe existing I-70 has become focusedon truck freight solutions rather than onautomobile solutions, so it is appropriate

to consider more comprehensively theopportunities that are offered by anenhanced railroad solution, runningdown the median of any new highwaysolution. An immediate advantage of

this co-location is that there would be norailway grade-level truck, automobile, orpedestrian crossings.

Any new railway must be compatiblewith existing rail freight movementtechnology and systems,while at thesame time being capable of upgradingto newer technological developments.This means that current-technologytrains must be able to operate over it. It

also means laying double sets of tracks,end-to-end. Furthermore, if high-speedpassenger rail service is to be offered,it may be necessary to make provisionfor extra sets of tracks, as it may not befeasible or practical to operate rail freightservices at the 100200 mph speedsmade possible by latest-technologypassenger rail services. Nevertheless,even though such services may not be

contemplated at the outset, it wouldbe a grave mistake if the initial outlayof physical infrastructure did not makeprovision for such speeds in the future. Inany case, the provision of a new railwayinfrastructure provides a much betteropportunity for high-speed rail servicesalong the entire urban corridor.

Perhaps needless to say, the newrailways must provide, through improved

rail-beds and by other measures, forsubstantially heavier loads, much heavierusage, lower down-time and costs formaintenance, and substantially higherspeeds than are current for most freightmovement.

Ultimately, what is being proposedhere is a gradual evolution to substantiall


25/532

Ultimately, what isbeing proposed

here is a gradual evolution tosubstantially reduced highway long-haul truck traf c relative toautomobile traf c.

reduced highway long-haul truck traf crelative to automobile traf c. This wouldbe accomplished by greatly expanding useof the proven intermodal freight movementparadigm, for both long-distance and

somewhat shorter-distance movements,and also for the sake of the much greatereconomy offered by rail freight movement.This would be further achieved by greatlyspeeding up the rail portion of intermodalfreight movement, and by signi cantlyimproving ef ciency and productivity ofrailway workers through automation andcomputerized control systems. With thevarious improvements that can be made

by the newer technologies, the thresholdof around 500 miles, at which intermodalfreight currently comes into its own,becomes much lower. Also, by shorteningthe end-to-end transit time for intermodalfreight movement, time-sensitive shipperswould have less need for more expensiveend-to-end truck movement of freight onhighways.

It would be reasonable to expect

a shortening of the current 500-milethreshold to no more than 250 miles,in most cases. The shortening wouldarise partially because the ef cienciesof the new technologies, with their loweroperating costs, would shorten in-transittimes. Other than the bene ts to shippersand consignees from speedier delivery,thereby reducing their costs, lower railroadoperating costs would lead to lower

prices paid by shippers and consignees.Finally, substantially higher rail freightvolume would lead to economies of scalethat are not as readily available in truckfreight shipping. The importance of thesescale economies arises from the verycapital-intensive nature of railroads, whichgenerate high xed costs. On the other

hand, rail marginal variable costs canbe comparatively quite low. An ef cientstrategy and policy for inexpensivefreight delivery would involve spreadingcomparatively high xed costs over a high

volume of freight delivery, thus loweringunit costs and prices to shippers.

Finally, while lower prices to shipperswould emerge, higher pro ts would likelyemerge for railroads. Higher freight traf cwould lead to better utilization of capital.With this, there would be a better returnon capital and a lower cost of borrowingfor the railroads . All of these are factorsthat would yield lower costs and prices for

rail freight movement (although the sametypes of bene ts would also accrue to asubstantially lesser degree from improvedtransportation infrastructure for truckmovement of freight).

Although the Corridors of the FuturePhase II Application produced by thefour state Departments of Transportationmakes a substantial presentation of thebene ts that newer technology can offer

in the context of a new TOL environment,many of the same technologicaldevelopments offer even greater bene tsin the movement of freight by rail. Inthis respect, the document presents anunbalanced perception and suggestsbene ts that appear contrary to thebene ts arising from rail movementof freight as presented in AASHTOsTransportation, Invest in America:

Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report.11

Thereis a need for a reconciliation of the rail/truck comparative bene ts, in terms ofdeveloping a uni ed perspective of atruly integrated national transportationsystem. Such a system would be onein which each mode of transportation,including water, rail, truck, and air, plays


26/5326

This study isfundamentally

concerned about economics and

patterns of urbandevelopment,

speci cally,urban corridor

development.Equally, it is

concerned withthe economic

role that transportationinfrastructuredevelopment

plays in economicgrowth.

the role most naturally suited to its owninherent strengths alongside the others ina 21st-century environment. The currentgyrations in oil and minerals markets, aswell as in nancial markets, likely herald a

new century quite different from the nalhalf of the 20th century.

The Urban Corridor Bene tsReiterated

In 1859, Abraham Lincoln, not yetpresident, traveled from Saint Joseph,Mo., to Council Bluffs, Iowa, where heconferred with F. Granville Dodge, acivil engineer who later became a UnionArmy general responsible for rebuildingsouthern railways that were destroyed byretreating Confederate forces. They spokeabout building a railway from CouncilBluffs, bridging the Missouri River toOmaha, and onward to San Francisco.

Later, as president, he securedpassage of legislation enablingconstruction of the Trans-ContinentalRailroad. Subsequently, Gen. Dodge was

appointed chief engineer for building whatbecame the Union Paci c Railroad.

The preceding sections of this studyhave outlined the economic and otherbene ts accruing from the urban corridorconcept. It remains only to reiterate thatthis study is fundamentally concernedabout economics and patterns of urbandevelopment, speci cally, urban corridordevelopment. Equally, it is concerned

with the economic role that transportationinfrastructure development plays ineconomic growth. It is not concerned withhighway or railroad development per se,except insofar that they are a conditionand cause of the former.

It is important to keep clearly in mindour goals, priorities, and objectives.

To an excessive extent, transportationinfrastructure planning and design todayis driven by an attempt to nd remedialsolutions to problems that, with betterforesight and analysis, or perhaps more

extensive use of pricing in the formof tolling, would not have occurred.Examples of such avoidable problemsinclude the congestion problem, or theproblems of excessive utilization of theinterstates for long-haul trucking, whichis prompting the current interest in TOLsto separate automobile and truck traf c.(Interestingly, the virtue of separatingthe two had been recognized in the early

part of the 20th century in the parkwaydevelopments north of New York City andin Connecticut. These parkways embodiedmost of the design features of the laterinterstate highways, but did not admitcommercial traf c.)

When highway engineers becometoo orientated toward nding engineeringsolutions to traf c problems, they often

nd only palliatives to the underlying

problem and its symptoms, not sensitiveenough to the greater economic bene tsthat could be obtained from a differentapproach to solving the problem.Instead, the underlying problem needsto be addressed, rather than simply anattempt to deal with symptoms such ascongestion, or an excessive proportionof trucks on the interstates. Even ifwe were to build some TOLs in some

instances, most interstates would remainshared roadways with both trucks andautomobiles.

To reiterate, we could bene tfrom a broader approach to looking attransportation needs, of all modes, andhow to provide for all of these needsin a cost-effective, integrative way that


27/532

It is evident that transportation

authorities aremore interested inaddressing issuesrelated to freight movement in theexisting I-70 right-of-way than withimprovements toautomobile traf ccapacity occurringas a byproduct of additional lanecapacity provisionfor trucks only.

maximizes economic and other socialbene ts. This is what the urban corridorconcept offers.

I cannot imagine that PresidentLincoln was looking for an engineering

solution to a problem when he broughtthe Trans-Continental Railroad to thefore. Lincolns problem-solving skills wereplenty occupied by the Civil War, yet hestill had the time and foresight to takeaction with such issues as the HomesteadAct and the Trans-Continental Railroad.Lincolns vision involved building the futureof the American nation. Today, privateinvestment in our transportation system is

needed in order to emulate that foresight,vision, and spirit.

Bene ts to Passenger RailThe urban corridor concept outlined

in the preceding sections of this studyembodies a substantial transportationcorridor infrastructural backbone. Althoughthe urban corridor sections are concernedmore with the I-70N highway infrastructure

of that transportation corridor, it isapparent that in providing the highwayinfrastructure, provision must be made foreventual inclusion of rail services in thatcorridor.

With the presentation of the TOLproposal, it is evident that transportationauthorities are more interested inaddressing issues related to freightmovement in the existing I-70 right-of-way

than with improvements to automobiletraf c capacity occurring as a byproductof additional lane capacity provisionfor trucks only. Consequently, the lattersections of this study are focused on thealternative of rail freight services withinthe new transportation infrastructurebackbone supporting the urban corridor.

However, an underlying considerationsupporting the whole concept of theurban corridor, and integral to it, is thatembedding a rail freight provision inthe corridor infrastructure makes the

attainment of passenger rail, both long-distance, high-speed, and shorter-distance(local), lower-speed passenger rail morereadily realizable.

In Missouris case, it is unlikely thatAmtrak could ever achieve satisfactoryservice between Kansas City and SaintLouis on the existing rail line between thetwo cities, much less high-speed service.With respect to high-speed services, it isalmost mandatory that they have doubletracks and no-grade crossings. However, itwould be relatively easy and inexpensiveto make provision for this within the overalltransportation infrastructural provision forthe new urban corridor backbone north ofthe existing I-70.

Summary of OpportunitiesAll of this simply illustrates the merits

of not looking at transportation problemsand their solutions in discrete unimodalways. We must look at them in integrativeways, especially with respect to theirsolutions. Because everything is relatedto everything else, we must look forsynergistic solutions in which each modalsolution supports the solution to other

modal problems, or we will surely arriveat suboptimal solutions to the overall setof problems. That doesnt mean that it willbe easy to solve all of the problems in anintegrative set of solutions, or that we willever totally succeed in doing so. But weshould attempt at least to give it our bestefforts.


28/5328

Cost of transport and cost of

time in delivery remain today

the main criteriafor shippersin deciding

whether to usewater transport,

railroad transport,truck transport,

or airplanetransport, with

air transport having taken

over substantial amounts of the

lightweight,

high-value,time-critical,long-distance

transport from surface

transportation.

vii. solution: new railroad in theurban corridor

Review of RailroadTechnology

Preceding sections of this studyreviewed broadly the history oftransportation growth in the United States.It is now time to look more directly at thegrowth of railroad technology, and wherethis technology has positioned the industrytoday.

The most salient aspect of railroading,as it developed in the 19th century, isits application of mechanical powerin the form of steam engines to themovement of people and goods overland. Because it operated over land,and was not dependent on waterways,railroads offered much better connectivityto all areas of the developing nation thanwaterways and steamboats. As railroadsdeveloped, and provided improved

connectivity, they largely replaced water-based transport on rivers and canals,except for very heavy materials that hadlow unit values (minerals and grain aresigni cant examples), and which were tobe transported between two locations thatwere connected by waterways.

Cost of transport and cost of time indelivery remain today the main criteriafor shippers in deciding whether to use

water transport, railroad transport, trucktransport, or airplane transport, with airtransport having taken over substantialamounts of the lightweight, high-value,time-critical, long-distance transport fromsurface transportation.

The basic land transportationparadigm embodied by the railroads has

been unchanged since Roman times: aprimary mover (horses, oxen, or steamengine) pulling one or more wagons.

Railroads were probably thesecond-earliest and most transformative

technological achievement (after thesteam engine itself) of the IndustrialRevolution. Today, almost two centurieslater, and with new technologicalrevolutions occurring seemingly every fewyears, it is amazing how much railroadingtechnology appears the same today asit did 100 years ago. There appear to beonly two exceptions to this, one minorand the other perhaps major. The minor

change is the replacement of steamengines with diesel electric locomotives,but this didnt have much direct impacton how rail freight movement operationswere conducted. A more signi cant impacthas occurred with the introduction ofinformation technology to improve railcar tracking, train makeup, and variousother aspects of day-to-day operationsmanagement. Still, the same paradigm

remains, with minor modi cations for unittrains, intermodal operations and the like,the same as it was a hundred years ago:a continuing process, which by todaysindustrial standards is considered labor-intensive, of assembling discrete railroadcars into a train, attaching them to aprimary mover, and pulling them downthe railway to another yard for a labor-intensive breaking down into distinct,

discrete cars, and then reassemblingmany of them into a new train that willtravel to a farther destination. The minorexception to this is the advent of unittrains, which stay in one piece from origto destination.

A central problem is that railroadingtoday is overly locked into 18th-century


29/532

A central problemis that railroading

today is overly locked into18th-century technologies and

practices, and is constrained from movingbeyond themby geography,

politics, existing physical infrastructure,and other relics of the

past.

technologies and practices, and isconstrained from moving beyond themby geography, politics, existing physicalinfrastructure, and other relics of the past.These, along with the capital-intensive

nature of railroads, make it extremelydif cult to introduce new freight movementtechnologies in an evolutionary waythat is upwardly compatible with oldertechnologies and operational practices.

There is an informative analogy to bedrawn here. The productive processesin 19th-century manufacturing weresubsequently termed job lot processes.Without trying to describe such processes

exactly, it is suf cient to say that HenryFord, with his assembly lines, developedwhat became known as process

ow production. As the 20th centuryprogressed, attention focused moreand more on the latter method. Todayspetroleum re nery is a good example ofprocess ow production, as is continuouscasting in a steel mill.

The point of all this is that processes

in railroading more closely resemble19th-century job lot production, and lessclosely resemble todays process owproduction. There is no need to clingto archaic methods for using moderntechnology. Newer microprocessor sensor,feedback, and control technology canhelp us move into the future. We need toreconceive railroading as an evolutionaryprocess evolving forward from todays

concept of assembling trains, moving frompoint to point, and disassembling them.The technology for doing this is availablenow. For nearly a half-century, computerscience students and their researchprofessors have routinely developedtheir knowledge and honed their skillsin computerized sensors, as well as

feedback and ow control systems, byworking with hobbyists electric modelrailroad systems!

We need to conceive moving freightby railroads as a continuous ow of goods

containers, all in more or less continuousmotion, with many different entering pointsand exit points in the mechanical transportsystem. Think of an airport baggagehandling system, or a robotic warehouseautomated picking system, both writ large.

Today, we have evolving technologiesto do this. We dont need new scienceor unavailable technologies in orderfor this proposal to come into being.

Implementation is simply a matter ofengineering current electric, hydraulic, andmicroprocessor sensor, feedback, andcontrol technologies. These are currentlybeing used in many goods movementapplications. These technologies arecertainly scalable to shipping industrycontainer sizes.

Railroads today use an earlyapplication of some of these technologies,for example, in multimodal shippingtransfer facilities. Moving forward withthe developments being made in thisarea, and extending them to the actualmovement of containers betweenmultimodal transfer points, would makesuch an evolution both feasible and morecost-effective than any other solution.

Safety

Safety is a good, but somewhatdisjointed, starting point in a discussion ofa new approach to railroading. A concernwith safety must pervade and alwaysprovide at least a background againstwhich any proposals must be testedbefore they can be further consideredfor viability. In the case of railroading,


30/5330

A concernwith safety

must pervadeand always

provide at least a background against whichany proposals

must be tested before they

can be further considered for

viability.

as it has been and is currently beingconducted, any proposed changes mustmeet a high standard to at least meetcurrent railroad safety performance.Railroads have an enviable record as

being the safest way to move goods andpeople about.

That said, there are two major safetyissues that have always faced railroads.The rst is the matter of grade crossings.Although railroad crossings promotesafety with visual and audible warnings, aswell as automated gates lowered acrossthe roadway, eliminating grade crossingsentirely is the only way to thoroughly

excise this problem. That may not begenerally feasible for all railway crossings,but this proposal involves running a new,enhanced railroad infrastructure downthe median separator of an interstatehighway. There are no grade crossingson interstates, and consequently, theenhanced railway proposed herein wouldhave no such crossings.

With regard to safety and medians,

a digressive comment is in order. Theproposals herein involve highway andrailroads running in parallel to each other.Many motorists experience unease if theyare traveling too closely alongside a train.To ameliorate this, measures must betaken to provide an extra-wide separationmedian between the highway lanes andthe railway tracks, or to provide for visualscreening of the railway from the highway.

The second safety issue is the matterof train collisions. These have mostlybeen a problem of head-on collisionsin single-track block railways. Thisproposal, however, involves doubletracking throughout. There would never beoccasion for two trains running in oppositedirections on the same tracks.

As far as a train running into therear of the train ahead of it on thesame track, todays GPS technology, inconjunction with automated inter-trainradio communications and automated

radio telemetry communications to andfrom each train, can readily maintainpositive speed and position control. TheFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) iscurrently proceeding with such a system,in three dimensions rather than two. In thworst-case scenario, that of a breakdownof positive communications, if electricpower were to be used, the control systemwould, as a last resort, simply shut down

power to the section of tracks in whichtrain in question is located.Derailments occur so infreque

Show-Me Institute_Building Transportation Infrastructure Across Missouri

Documents

Transcript of Show-Me Institute_Building Transportation Infrastructure Across Missouri