National Academies Press: OpenBook

Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs (2017)

Chapter: Appalachian Regional Rail Project

« Previous: Program Innovation
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Appalachian Regional Rail Project." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24788.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Appalachian Regional Rail Project." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24788.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Appalachian Regional Rail Project." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24788.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Appalachian Regional Rail Project." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24788.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Appalachian Regional Rail Project." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24788.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Appalachian Regional Rail Project." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24788.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Appalachian Regional Rail Project." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24788.
×
Page 23

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

This proje improvem Railroad G the states each prop is faced w 286,000 p infrastruc Figure 5 Pho Project Partners:  PROJECT  TIGER GR           Ken           Ten           Wes State of K R. J. Corm Total Pro APPA ct used TIGE ents on five  roup (RJCR).  of Kentucky, erty, often a ith significan ound railcars ture work ma to by Jonathan Budget Kentucky, Te BUDGET ANT tucky Award nessee Award t Virginia Aw entucky Mat an Matching ject Cost CASE STUDY  LACH R I funds in co disconnected  Together, th  Tennessee,  fter many ye t infrastructu . The TIGER f ny years bef  Kleppinger – Je nnessee, Wes ard ching Funds  Funds 1 ‐ Appalacia IAN  mbination w  short line ra ey account fo and West Vir ars of neglect re capital cos unds will hel ore it could o ssamine Journa t Virginia, Co n Regional R REGI ith state and ilroads. Thes r over 262 ro ginia. RJCR is  or disinvest ts to increas p RJCR levera therwise be  l  ntractor $17,55 $12,96 $2,82 $1,77 $20 $4,19 $21,94 ail Project  ONA  private mat e railroads a ute miles of  attempting t ment by prev e train speed ge its interna accomplished 1,028 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 L RAI ch for infrast re all controll  track serving o rebuild the ious operato s and accom l resources t .  L PRO 20 ructure  ed by R.J. Co  communitie  traffic base  rs. The comp modate mod o perform th JECT   rman  s in  on  any  ern  e   

  21    Project Background R.J. Corman Railroad Group (RJCR), headquartered in Nicholasville, Kentucky, operates a family of short  line railroads. RJCR acquired most of these railroads following long periods of deferred maintenance by  previous operators. Like many short line railroad companies, RJCR is attempting to rebuild a traffic base  previously eroded by infrastructure and service shortcomings. While this process was proceeding  successfully, RJCR felt that addressing the large backlog of needed repairs using earned revenues would  take an unacceptably long time to complete. Delay posed the risk that promising traffic prospects would  find permanent alternatives to rail or locate elsewhere before RJCR could upgrade its service.  When the TIGER Discretionary Grant program was announced in 2009, RJCR quickly recognized the  benefits a TIGER grant could provide and crafted a proposal based on its properties in the Appalachian  states of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Appalachia suffers from both high  unemployment and infrastructure constraints that hinder transport capacity. It was believed that  improvements to the railroad network could help attract new industry to the rail network. This new  business would in turn increase employment, and improve rail service to existing customers, possibly  preserving existing jobs.  RJCR worked with officials in the aforementioned states to develop an application for $37.20 million in  TIGER I funding. The proposal was titled the “Appalachian Regional Short Line Rail Project.” The funds  were to be used to address infrastructure deficiencies on RJCR lines in these states. Generally, RJCR  proposed to contribute a match equal to 20 percent of the TIGER funding. Because of the rail mileage  and amount of funding targeted toward RJCR’s Kentucky properties, the Kentucky Transportation  Cabinet (KYTC) agreed to submit the application on behalf of all partners. The other states submitted  letters of support and, in some cases, agreements to provide matching funds and in‐kind support.        

In Februa Appalachi scale the  allocated  the state. contracte managem of grant fu Railroad RJCR Cen RJCR Bar RJCR Me RJCR Ten RJCR We ry 2010, the U an Regional S award to $17 award funds   Each state re d with RJCR t ent to the Ke nded work w R   tral Kentuck dstown Line  mphis Line  nessee Term st Virginia Lin .S. Departm hort Line Ra .55 million, d to each of th ceived its po o perform th ntucky Divisi as to be in K .J. Corman R To M y Line  12 20 98 inal  47 e  16 ent of Transp il Project. Ho ropping the  e three rema rtion of fund e work propo on of the Fed entucky.  ailroads Rece tal  iles  State 8  KY    KY    KY, T   TN    WV ortation (US wever, fundin proposal elem ining states b s via a separa sed. USDOT  eral Highway iving Grant F s  Wo Cro Cro N  Cro Cro Cro anc DOT) announ g limitations ents in Ohio ased on the  te federal ag assigned the  Administrat unded Impr rk Items  ssties, ballas ssties, ballas ssties, ballas ssties, ballas ssties, rail, b hors, bridge  ced a TIGER   forced the d  or Pennsylv amount of p reement. Ea  overall respo ion, since th ovements  t, surfacing, b t, surfacing, b t, surfacing, b t, surfacing  allast, surfaci repairs  22 award for th epartment t ania. USDOT  roposed wor ch state then nsibility for  e largest port ridge repairs ridge repairs ridge repairs ng, welds, ra   e  o  k in    grant  ion        il 

  23    Project Objectives As outlined in the proposal, the project had a number of objectives, with most addressing the then  current USDOT strategic goals:   State of Good Repair   Economic Competitiveness   Environmental Sustainability   Livability   Safety    The proposal specifically itemized the following overall project objectives:   Improve state of repair on railroads.   Improve quality of rail service.   Improve intermodal connections.   Remove truck traffic from highways, reducing highway deterioration.   Improve air quality by lowering truck related emissions.   Increase opportunities for employment in region.   Benefit suppliers in the region.   Improve safety of hazardous materials transportation.   Improve rail‐highway grade crossing safety.   Reduce fuel consumption.    The benefit recipients for objectives supporting these goals vary. RJCR accelerated needed repairs to its  railroads to better serve customer needs and attract new customers. These repairs also reduced the  company’s annual operating costs, particularly in the areas of labor, derailments, and routine  maintenance. These objectives ultimately benefited the company’s bottom line. Other project benefits  accrued to the citizens of the states through which the railroads operate. These would include increased  employment, more livable communities due to reduced congestion, improved highway safety, and  improved air quality. Businesses were expected to be more competitive due to the transportation  improvements resulting from the project.  Project Achievements All work items in the project proposal were successfully completed through the joint efforts of RJCR and  the state partners. Several routine audits showed that project funds were spent in accordance with the  grant statement of work and applicable state and federal requirements.   Creation of a rail program at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet was an unexpected project  achievement. Prior to the TIGER I grant, KYTC had little internal expertise in rail transportation. The  TIGER grant raised awareness of rail investment for elected officials across Kentucky, including the  governor and key legislators, and with senior KYTC management.   A second project achievement was the development of rail institutional knowledge. The grant oversight  process resulted in the development of a body of rail expertise within KYTC staff in both accounting and  disbursement procedures as well as rail inspection processes. Both RJCR and the KYTC consultant 

24  providing construction inspection services to the project generously contributed to this education  process.   The TIGER I grant set the stage for legislative action that provided funding for two grant programs:  Kentucky Short Line Railroad Assistance (KSRA) and Kentucky Railroad Crossing Improvement Program.  Kentucky also received an $11.56 million TIGER III grant, which the state matched with $1 million, to  help replace a critical railroad bridge. The experience provided by the TIGER I grant left KYTC staff well  equipped to manage the new programs and the TIGER III grant. The program also brought KYTC  personnel into contact with rail program peers in Kentucky and Tennessee.  Project Outcome It is too soon to quantify the degree to which all of the project objectives have been met. It takes several  years of data, for example, to distinguish true safety trends from normal annual random fluctuation.  However, early results show positive outcomes for some objectives. The infrastructure improvements  have greatly reduced temporary speed reductions (slow orders) related to track condition, allowing RJCR  to provide better service and reduce costs. Track improvements permit RJCR to handle 286,000 pound  cars on critical line segments, an important consideration for many rail customers. Work items like  welding rail to remove joints have undoubtedly reduced track maintenance. Despite difficult market  conditions, RJCR has seen an increase in carloads on its Kentucky sand and aluminum corridor (Memphis  and Central Kentucky lines). Recently, Hankook Tire announced plans to build a major new $800 million  manufacturing plant in Clarksville, Tennessee, a city served exclusively by the RJCR Memphis Line. The  plant will directly employ 1800 workers, making it the largest private sector employer in the city. In  announcing the plant, the company stated “The Clarksville, Tennessee location is ideal for Hankook,  offering an extensive transportation network including rail…”  The project directly resulted in a short‐term boost in employment in the regions surrounding the  railroads. Eighty‐nine employees were hired for the project, resulting in nearly 158,500 work hours. Nine  employees received permanent employment.  One of the short lines in West Virginia improved rail access to a coal mine. As business conditions  change from the time of the original TIGER grant application, ties, track and other infrastructure may  need to be relocated if the coal mine is no longer viable based on environmental regulations. TIGER  Grants provide funding based on the life cycle of an asset such as rail track and infrastructure.  Lessons Learned The project overall should be considered a success from the standpoint of all parties involved.  Collaboration between RJCR and each of its state partners ultimately resulted in the needed work being  performed within the grant budget.  Both the public and private sector participants learned from the  experience.  From R.J. Corman’s perspective, the process of dealing with federal and state procurement,  management, inspection, and audit processes required adjustments. Provisions such as Buy America  required specific procurement and documentation. Like many private firms, RJCR had a “can‐do, get 

  25    started” culture. The proposal even indicated an expectation that “Each of these projects will be started  within 60 days of the grant award…”  Some of the minor challenges were that expectations about work  flow and process documentation needed to be coordinated more than the parties had traditionally  practiced. As well as state processes varied between partners’ states.  The reality was that the required process did not permit this ambitious plan. It took time for the states  to develop their agreements with the USDOT, and additional time was required for the states to  implement agreements with RJCR. TIGER was a new program at that time, and both federal and state  agencies had to develop procedures to meet their requirements. Ultimately, RJCR had to consider the  contracting and project management processes of three different states. This meant different types of  agreements, inspection requirements, invoicing, and audits. RJCR also had to develop processes to  comply with federal project requirements such as payment of prevailing labor wage rates and “Buy  America.” RJCR had also hoped that permits would not be required for project work. However, road  crossing closures and work involving blue‐water streams did require permits. Road crossing work in at  least one instance also triggered Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues.  Award of the funds to a private partner, while planned in the grant, required waivers from the state’s  normal competitive bidding process. Further, RJCR proposed to do the work using force account labor— a variation from normal state practice on projects. KYTC, for example, ultimately had to obtain a formal  Public Interest Finding to permit the contracting process to proceed. This introduced months of delay  into the schedule.  KYTC had to build the internal expertise needed to oversee its grant activities. This process took time,  but ultimately resulted in long‐term capabilities that did not exist prior to the grant. This expertise has  allowed KYTC to manage new rail programs enacted by the legislature since the TIGER grant.  Innovation What was innovative about the partnership?  The partnership brought together three states and a short line railroad holding company whose lines did  not span or link the states (except for the RJCR Memphis Line, which does operate in both Tennessee  and Kentucky). The state partnership was based on a common set of regional issues and concerns.  However, the railroad served as the catalyst to bring them together for the project.  What was innovative in the project?  The tasks undertaken in this project involved fairly typical railroad rehabilitation activities that are not in  themselves particularly innovative. What was innovative about this project, perhaps without  premeditation by the participants, was the way in which the project developed and nurtured the skill set  within a state DOT to manage a rail program. Prior to this grant, KYTC had almost no involvement with  rail. As a result of an increased awareness of rail brought on largely by this project, Kentucky embarked  on a more ambitious and long‐term set of programs supporting rail transportation. The project  inspection consultant and RJCR personnel mentored KYTC staff in the basic principles of rail  infrastructure construction and maintenance, and in rail safety. This knowledge base, along with the 

26  program management experience resulting from the project, left KYTC staff in an excellent position to  take on further rail programs.  What measures were used to assess performance?  Truck traffic volume diverted from roads.  Number of labor‐hours produced by project work.  Number of permanent jobs created.  Reduction in daily train delay due to slow orders.  Reduction in track‐miles affected by slow orders.  Increase in daily gross rail ton‐miles. Summary This case study’s innovation included:   A combination of private railroad, federal and state funding.  Collaboration among parties.  New institutional arrangements among and within states.  Accommodation of expectations by each party to meet federal contracting requirements.

Next: Port of Miami Rail Project »
Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs Get This Book
×
 Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Rail Research Program (NCRRP) Web Only Document 4: Inventory of State and Federal Passenger and Freight Rail Programs explores rail funding trends and objectives, a program taxonomy, an inventory of federal and state programs, and case studies to highlight rail funding innovation in practice.

The Matrix of Rail Programs includes information about 379 state and federal, passenger and freight rail programs. The matrix allows users to compare programs by state or by defining characteristics, including funding types, project types, applicant eligibility, funding objectives, and primary program elements.

This spreadsheet is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine or the Transportation Research Board (collectively "TRB") be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!