u.s. railroads and the future of intermodal traffic
DESCRIPTION
U.S. Railroads and the Future of Intermodal Traffic. Francis P. Mulvey Vice Chairman Surface Transportation Board Footwear Traffic Distribution and Customs Conference Long Beach, CA September 15, 2008. U.S. Railroads and the Future of Intermodal Traffic. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
U.S. Railroads and the Future of Intermodal Traffic
Francis P. MulveyVice Chairman
Surface Transportation BoardFootwear Traffic Distribution and
Customs ConferenceLong Beach, CA
September 15, 2008
2
U.S. Railroads and the Future of Intermodal Traffic
• Modern U.S. railroad industry can be divided into pre- & post- Staggers Act
• In the 19th Century railroads expanded rapidly especially after the Civil War
• However, much abuse of monopoly power leading to the Interstate Commerce Act and federal regulations
• Federal regulations ultimately extended to all modes, but proved potentially harmful to railroads
3
Railroad Industry Pre-Staggers• 40 Class I Railroads• 9 Railroads bankrupt • Industry-wide low return-on-investment• Railroads unable to raise capital• Railroads faced steadily declining market share• Regulation prevented RRs from any flexibility
in pricing to compete with other modes• Carriers could not abandon redundant or light
density lines to cut costs• Rates could not cover inflation due to regulatory
lag in rate adjustments
4
Staggers Rail Act of 1980
• Railroads given freedom to set rail rates based on demand
• Streamlined procedures for the abandonment and sale of rail lines
• Encouraged Railroad-Shipper contracts• Expanded ICC power to exempt
categories of traffic • Rates evaluated by ICC under a
reasonableness test
5
Growth & Decline of Class I Railroad Mileage
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
6
Railroad ROI 1970 - 2006
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
1970
1980
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
7
Railroad Industry Cost of Capital and ROI 1996-2006
Cost of Capital BNSF CSXT NS UP KCS SOO GT
1996 11.9% 8.6% 8.9% 13.0% 9.3% 7.2% 23.5% 0.0%1997 11.8% 8.4% 9.8% 13.1% 5.2% 3.6% 12.3% 5.2%1998 10.7% 9.7% 8.1% 10.5% 2.9% 9.1% 4.9% 3.0%1999 10.8% 9.5% 3.8% 5.2% 6.8% 6.4% 2.5% 25.4%2000 11.0% 8.8% 3.6% 5.5% 6.9% 6.3% 5.6% 5.9%2001 10.2% 7.1% 4.6% 8.3% 7.6% 7.0% 5.9% 4.9%2002 9.8% 6.4% 5.2% 9.1% 8.6% 6.5% 5.7% 3.1%2003 9.4% 6.2% 4.0% 9.1% 7.3% 3.7% 0.01% 4.5%2004 10.1% 5.8% 4.4% 11.6% 4.5% 8.3% 3.3% 6.0%2005 12.2% 10.3% 6.2% 13.2% 6.3% 5.9% 8.9% 8.1%2006 9.9% 11.4% 8.2% 14.4% 8.2% 9.3% 11.6% 9.5%
8
Railroad Employment 1939-2006
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
237,000
1,151,000
1,670,000
2006
9
$4.120 $2.145$4.875 $2.320$4.445 $2.183$4.549 $1.507$4.421 $1.012$4.645 $1.021$4.561 $1.299$4.941 $1.301$5.400 $1.000$6.400 $1.500
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
Class I Capital Expenditures1994 - 2007
Roadway & Structures
Equipment
Total
Billions
2007
10
Since Staggers
• Rail industry freight traffic ton-mile market share has increased from 30.3% in 1980 to 41.2% in 2005
• Rail rates down 55% on average (inflation adjusted)
• Railroads’ ROI increased • Railroads substantially increased
investment in infrastructure• Improvement in safety performance
11
Modal Markets Shares
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
U.S. Freight Ton-Miles by Mode: 1980-2005
Railroads
Truck
Data exclude natural gas pipelines. Trucks exclude household, service, retail, and certain other shipments. Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics
WaterPipelines
12
The Railroad Industry Today
• 7 Class I Railroads
• 525 Class II and Class III railroads
• Much reduced system through rationalization
• Average length of haul – 900 miles
13
Railroads and Intermodalism• Despite regulatory malaise, railroads did
innovate• Pennsylvania Railroad adopted Piggyback
Service between Chicago and New York in the mid 1950’s
• Containerization began in 1956 by Malcolm McLean
• Containerization and intermodalism resulted in major improvements in transportation productivity
14
Long Island Rail Road carrying farm wagons to market in
January 1885.
15
16
Intermodal Shipments Beginning 1965
275482930445743363244369250243757264443709484113052444015419631570021962882606332021678102273297688065539871360693995229430000
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
1965
1975
1985
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
Total 12,030,000
Containers 9,430,000
Trailers 2,600,00
17
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Growth of Intermodal Traffic in Port of LA/LB, 1980-2007
18
Container Traffic At The Largest North American Pacific Coast Ports
YTD 2008 (through July) traffic flows in TEU’sImports – loads
Port 2007 2008 Change Pct.
Los Angeles 2,531,107 2,263,959 (267,148) -10.55%Long Beach 2,132,560 1,861,725 (270,835) -12.70%Vancouver 593,246 608,021 14,775 2.49%Oakland 496,568 470,250 (26,318) -5.30%Seattle 465,193 404,911 (60,282) -12.96%Tacoma 402,120 376,117 (26,003) -6.47%Portland 63,489 63,045 (444) -0.70%
Total 6,684,284 6,048,028 (636,256) -9.52%
19
Container Traffic At The Largest North American Pacific Coast Ports
YTD 2008 (through July) traffic flows in TEU’sExports – loads
Port 2007 2008 Change Pct.
Los Angeles 894,283 1,092,678 198,395 22.18%Long Beach 866,537 1,067,574 201,037 23.20%Vancouver 445,282 493,483 48,201 10.82%Oakland 514,482 559,756 45,274 8.80%Seattle 274,198 278,652 4,454 1.62%Tacoma 249,172 304,319 55,147 22.13%Portland 86,952 76,779 (10,173) -11.70%
Total 3,330,906 3,873,241 542,335 16.28%
20
Container Traffic At The Largest North American Pacific Coast Ports
YTD 2008 (through July) traffic flows in TEU’sPct. Imports
Port 2007 2008
Los Angeles 74% 67%Long Beach 71% 64%Vancouver 57% 55%Oakland 49% 46%Seattle 63% 59%Tacoma 62% 55%Portland 42% 45%
Total 67% 61%
21
Future of Intermodalism
SPURS• Rising Fuel Prices• Continued Truck Driver Shortages• Growing Highway Congestion• New Ports and Port Modernization
22
Future of Intermodalism
THREATS• Lack of Rail Capacity• Lack of Domestic Port Capacity• Rising Manufacturing Costs Abroad Relative
to U.S.• More All-Water Routes
– Panama Canal to Eastern U.S.
• Lack of Investment due to Re-Regulation
23
Growing Capacity/Congestion Problem
• Problem not limited to highways
• Ports dealing with larger vessels and rapidly expanding international trade
• Rail capacity problem is of more recent vintage
• Economic regulation fostered excess capacity, especially for railroads
24
The Developing Rail Capacity Crisis
Shrinking workforce and infrastructure partially offset by productivity improvement but… continuous increase in traffic begins to absorb “excess capacity”
Network becomes more vulnerable to stochastic events
A “perfect storm” or the rail version of global warming
25
The Genesis of theRailroad Capacity Problem
• Improved earnings yet all Class I’s are not revenue adequate
• Historically RR’s ‘punished’ by Wall Street for making capital investments
• RR’s often found that infrastructure investments failed to generate sufficient income
• L/T strategy to reduce size of workforce• Added rail infrastructure is long-lived while
demand increases can be short-lived
26
Carrier Responses to Recent Capacity Problem
• More railcars and locomotives purchased and leased
• Accelerated hiring and training of crews
• Some infrastructure expansion efforts
• Price rationing of available capacity
• RR’s choosing who they will serve and the common carrier obligation
27
Long-Term Rail Capacity Constraint Factors
• Demand for freight rail projected to grow by 60-70% over next two decades
• RR’s inability to earn cost of capital• Pressure from Wall Street to reduce capital
costs and improve ROI• Long-term contracts limit RR pricing
flexibility• RR’s tend to bid L/T contract rates down
to L/R marginal costs
28
Approaches to the Transportation Congestion Problem
• Build more physical infrastructure
• Adopt technological innovations– Can RR’s do this and maintain profitability?
• Better utilize existing facilities
• Promote shipper/traveler behavioral changes
• Public/Private Partnerships
All have potential but all have limits
29
Infrastructure Capacity• SAFETEA-LU – 2 years late, $90
Billion short• $286.5 Billion over 6 years
– 38% more than TEA-21 in 1998
– Far short of $375 Billion estimated need
• Contained rail title but far from intermodal legislation
• Expanded the RIFF program to $35 Billion, makes shippers eligible
30
Rail Capacity Investment
• RR’s support limited public sector role• Public/Private partnerships
– Alameda Corridor– CREATE
• RR Trust Fund concept• Investment Tax Credits
– Short Lines 286K car issue– Class I access and limited fiscal capacity
• Renew interest in infrastructure investment and GREEN-TEA
31
Obstacles
• Dollar resources
• Resistance to change
• Labor contracts
• Ineffective lobbying efforts to address freight transportation needs
32
Need to Focus on Freight Issues & Intermodal Solutions
• Reauthorization of highway program is only 4 years away
• Increase visibility of freight issues• Install a comprehensive evaluation
process (i.e. c/b analysis) within in the planning process
• Address limitations on federal funding that dedicates $ to a single mode or non-freight purposes
33
Thank you. Questions?