Study of rail service to Erie's Bayfront and Port as part of the implementation of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program final report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Attachment 16

CITY OF ERIE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

STUDY OF RAIL SERVICE
TO ERIE'S BAYFRONT AND PORT

AS PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
gai THE PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL
CONSULTANTS, INC. ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pittsburgh, Monroeville
Pennsylvania 15146 Coastal
Funded and Coordinated through
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Office of Resources Management
Coastal Zone Management Office
Zone

SUBMITTED TO: LOUIS J. TULLIO, MAYOR
CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA

PROJECT 82-140

NOVEMBER 1983

HE2781.E75S78 1983 c.1

Erie (Pa.). Dept. of Public Works.

CITY OF ERIE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

STUDY OF RAIL SERVICE
TO ERIE'S BAYFRONT AND P0RT

AS PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FINAL REPORT

SUBMITTED TO: LOUIS J. TULLIO, MAYOR
CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA

PROJECT 82-140

NOVEMBER 1983

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
570 BEATTY ROAD
MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 15146

T HE C I TY 0 F E ER I E
municipal building
Pennsylvania
Wasinder S Mokha, P.E. Robert J. Wayteniak, P.E.
City Engineer Director of Public Works
Room 400
Municipal Building
Phone 455-8561 Ext. 211

October 12, 1983

Mr. E. James Tabor, Chief
Division of Coastal Zone Management
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - DER
P. 0. Box 1467
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Re: Erie Bayfront Rail. Access Study

Dear Mr. Tabor:

We wish to inform you that the Erie Bayfront Rail Access Study funded
through the Coastal Zone Management program has been extremely helpful in
the preparation of the Bayfront Fort-Access Road Design Location Study and
Environmental Impact Statement (B-FAR). Because of the interdependence of
the aforementioned studies the Erie Bayfront Rail Access Study became a
dynamic process as opposed to dealing with relatively fixed events. The City
of Erie received several proposals for development of Bayfront properties
for other than current zoning uses and as such the said study needed to take
into account the impact of such proposals.

The-, scope of work for the B-PAR was revised to include information and
recomendations resultin,3 from the referenced study, such as;
1. Add Alternate Alignment Scheme IA to the B-FAR study stopping
rail service east of' State Street, thus reducing construction
costs by approximately $1,600,000.00.
2. Provide a connection between an existing Port road and Eastern
Alternate 3 in order to eliminate commercial truck traffic from
local residential streets as well as in the vicinity of the
Gertrude Barber Center, a school for the mentally handicapped.
3. Provide a grade-separated connection over Conrail tracks at
Wayne Street as opposed to a planned at-grade crossing.
4. Provide a 600-foot tail track for GAP Corp. in order to maintain
existing rail service capacity.

Page TWO
E. James Tabor
Erie Bayfront Rail Access Study

The preceding partial list of actions taken by the City of Erie
resulted from interviews and other data generated by GAI consultants, ants, Inc.
in the preparation of the referenced study. feel that the Eric Baylfront
Rail Access Study has been and will be extremely useful to the City of Erie
in formulating short-term as well as long-term plans.

Should you need additional information and/or clarification please feel
free to contact this office.

Very truly yours,

Wasinder S Mokha, P.E.
City Engineer

cc: Walter Heintzleman, GAI

WSM:mlf

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.

PREFACE

In recent years the City of Erie has undertaken several initiatives to

increase employment, identify development opportunities and plan for new

transportation facilities needed to support existing and future economic

development particularly in the City's unique Bayfront area. The City has

undertaken several studies focussed on Bayfront and Port development, in

cooperation with the Coastal Zone Management Program of the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation, the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority, the Erie

Conference on Community Development and other agencies. A key study,

Port and Bayfront Development Potentials, Erie, Pennsylvania, completed in 1982

for the Port Authority, evaluated development potentials for the Erie Bayfront.

That report identified sites of potential residential, industrial and commercial

uses, emphasized the importance of a Bayfront-Port Access Road to new

development initiatives, and recognized the advantage of rail accessibility for

marketing industrial development.

Concurrently, the City undertook a Design Location Study and

Environmental Impact Statement for the Bayfront-Port Access Road. Early

aligrnment schemes for this road showed right-of-way locations on or near the

existing Conrail line and yard that serve Bayfront industry. These locational

opportunities for the Bayfront Road advanced several issues concerning the use

of and future need for portions of the Bayfront rail line. Of special interest

were the implications for user industries and future development of the Port

Area if portions of the rail line were abandoned.

The City was also concerned about the effects of Conrail's planned

abandonment of the Erie to Warren line, particularly the effect of such action

on the market for rail-to-water movements through Erie's Port.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.

The work described in this report was undertaken for the City of Erie in

May, 1982 and deals with rail service to Bayfront industries provided by the

Conrail line between East Avenue on the east and 12th Street on the west. Its

purpose was to obtain data and provide timely findings pertaining to rail ser-

vice in the Bayfront which could be used by the City as input to policy and

actions during the period of the study, as well as after. Throughout the study

period, the data and preliminary findings were made available to the City; and

through meetings and interviews, feedback was invited from other public agen-

cies and Bayfront industries.

This study provided the City with the much needed input on the

importance of rail services to existing and proposed industries. Also, it pro-

vided the City with critical policy information on the impacts of the proposed

Bayfront Roadway on rail service to Bayfront industries, and provided options

to reduce those impacts and/or costs to maintain adequate rail service.

The timing and funding of this Bayfront Rail Study was fortuitous--as data

and results were developed they were used by the City in evaluating locational

alternatives for the proposed Bayfront Road, which were being advanced

through the on-going Bayfront Road Study and EIS. This interaction permitted

a shift in the focus of this study from studying hypothetical rail abandonment

futures and hypothetical public responses to evaluating actual abandonment,

relocation and grade-crossing schemes developed as part of concurrent Bayfront

Road and Port Area Development Studies. More industrial contacts and addi-

tional in-depth interviews were undertaken as it became apparent that the

continued use of the Bayfront Rail Line by key rail users would largely deter-

mine the future viability of rail service there. This in-project emphasis shift

permitted detailed information on the rail-dependent operations of major

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. iv

industries to be obtained and introduced into decisions regarding Bayfront Road

locations and Port Area development. This work further provided a timely

representation of industrial rail user needs and concerns in the City's effort to

resolve potential rail-highway locational conflicts.

As Ahe work progressed, early findings on the effects on Bayfront

industries of possible rail line abandonment were transmitted to the City and

used by - the City in planning for industrial development and in its Bayf ront

Road Study. Later, the products of more detailed interviews with Bayfront rail

users were used by the City in evaluating the impact on existing rail users of

possible Bayfront Road crossings of the rail line.

The policy decision process was extremely complex and dynamic.

Numerous informal coordinating meetings were held and extensive efforts were

made to understand and reconcile the many and varying industrial, railroad and

public interests. Key policy decision points fo'cused on what track should be

abandoned; need for tail track to serve GAF; options for providing rail service

to GAF; potential rail service to Penelec; rail conflict with vehicle access via

Holland Street to the proposed industrial park location of the Conrail Lake Yard

to minimize conflict and costs of proposed Bayfront Road; access from Port

Industrial Road to Bayfront Road; and the potential conflicts of the proposed

Bayfront Roadway crossing tracks serving Koppers. The report also deals with

policy options for ownership and management of the Bayfront Rail Line and

discusses the conditions under which continuation of rail service will be most

likely.

Subsequently, the City has used the data and conclusions reported herein

to develop policy positions on specific trackage abandonment options supportive

of its overall objectives of maintaining Bayfront industrial employment, encour-

aging new development through improved used of Bayfront property and

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
v

continuing rail service to Bay1ron, and Port industries. 11 has also used he

study at other key policy decision points and has adopted a number of options

as articulated in the accompanying letter to this report from City Engineer

Wasinder Mokha.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1* ISSUES,_ . . . . . .

3. SURVEY OF BAYFRONT RAIL USERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Transportation Needs of Bayfront and Port
Area Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 Interviews with Industrial Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4 Major Rail Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. AREAS OF POSSIBLE RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Rail Relocation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5. EFFECTS ON BAYFRONT INDUSTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1 Bayfront Rail Access and Road Location Alternatives . . . . 14
5.2 Areas West of the GAF Plant .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3 Areas East of the GAF Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4 Major Industrial Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6. BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1 Effects on Future Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.2 Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
6.3 Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

7. FUTURE BAYFRONT RAIL SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.1 Market for Rail Service . . . . 41
7.2 Management and Financial Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

8. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

APPENDIX A- Survey of Rail Users and Impact on the Economy
APPENDIX B - Conrail Track and Property
APPENDIX C - Alternative Truck Routes to Bayfront Industries
APPENDIX D - Conrail and Koppers Plant Rail Operations
APPENDIX E - Erie-Warren Line Abandonment- PaDOT Response

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. vii

'LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Businesses Contacted

Table 2 Cargo by Type, Tonnage and Transportation Cost

Table 3 Bayfront Area Rail Service

Table 4 Summary of Economic Effects

Table 5 Additional Truck Movements

Table 6A Air Quality and Noise Levels (1985)

Table 613 Air Quality and Noise Levels (2004)

Table 7 Comparison of Air Quality and Noise Levels

Table B-1 Conrail Bayfront Property (City Records)

Table B-2 Conrail Bayfront Property (Conrail Records)

Table C-1 Travel Times Between Intersection of 1-90 and T.R. 531 to
Proposed Bayfront Industrial Park

Table D-1 Typical Daily Koppers Railroad Operations Crossing Proposed
Bayfront Road

Table D-2 Alternate Typical Daily Koppers Railroad Operation Crossing
Proposed Bayfront Road

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Bayfront-Port Access Road and Conrail Line in Bayfront Area

Figure 2 Alternate Rail Schemes

Figure 3 Bayfront Rail Service and Bayfront-Port Access Road Location

Figure 4 Sites for Bayfront Residential, Commercial and Industrial
Development

Figure 5 Conceptual Sketch of Erie Bluff

Figure 6 Conceptual Sketch of Lake Erie Mews and Niagara Place

Figure 7 Conceptual Sketch of Port Industrial Park

Figure B-1 Conrail Property - State Street West to 12th Street

Figure C-1 Truck Route Alternate 1

Figure C-2 Truck Route Alternate 2

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. viii

LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)

Figure C-3 Truck Route Alternate 3

Figure C-4 Truck Route Alternate 4

Figure D-1 Koppers Erie Plant Railroad Access

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

GAI Consultants wishes to acknowledge the assistance and contributions to

this study by the following agencies and firms:

City of Erie

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Coastal Zone Management

Codan

Conrail

Erie Conference on Community Development

Erie Marine

Erie Sand and Gravel

Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority

Frontier Lumber

GAF

General Electric

Hammermill Paper

Keystone University Research

Koppers

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Penelec

Perry Shipbuilding

United Refinery

Urban Engineers, Inc.

Other businesses, citizens and agencies in the Erie Area

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.

1. INTRODUCTION

The City of Erie is pursuing the revitalization of the City's Bayfront and

Port to maximize the advantages of these unique areas for improving the City's

employment base and the quality of the Bayfront environment. Key elements of

the City's program are efforts to develop productive residential, commercial and

industrial uses of Bayfront and Port properties and to construct a Bayfront-

Port Access Road linking the Bayfront with 1-79 on the west and Route 5 on

the east. Of critical importance to maintaining present industry and attracting

new industrial development is the continuation of rail service to the Bayfront

Area, with provision of new service connections to Port industrial sites as

development occurs.

This report presents the results of a study of present and future rail use

in the Bayfront Area. It first reviews the major issues regarding the role of

rail service in new Bayfront development, the compatibility of the location of

rail facilities and the proposed Bayfront-Port Access road, and the future need

for rail service. The results of surveys of industrial rail users are presented.

The report then reviews the alternatives for rail location derived from the

on-going Corridor Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement

for the Bayfront-Port Access Road. The implications of various rail relocation

schemes for present and future Bayfront land uses, and the effects on present

rail users are discussed, based on information gathered from in-depth inter-

views with representatives of Bayfront industries.

Alternatives to rail service for various abandonment or relocation schemes

are discussed. The potential effects of the options on industrial development,

non-industrial land uses, and Bayfront Road construction are presented along

with attention to economic, environmental, management and financial concerns.

The final section summarizes the study conclusions.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 2

2. ISSUES

The following, key issues which this report addresses focus on the

redevelopment of Erie's Bayfront, the compatibility of Bayfront rail and highway

access, and the prospect for continuation of rail service to Bayfront properties.

Bayfront Area Redevelopment

0 Industrial use and employment in the City's Port and Bayfront area

has declined, and the City has advanced concepts and plans to at-

tract new industry and improve facilities for existing industry.

0 Erie's Bayfront offers unique opportunities for development of

condominium, commercial and recreational markets that are presently

untapped.

0 Rail service is needed to serve existing industries and to support new

industrial development.

0 The Bayfront-Port Access Road is needed to link Bayfront properties

with 1-79 on the west and T.R. 5 on the east, and will serve indus-

trial, recreational, condominium, commercial and commuter traffic.

Compatibility of Bayfront Highway and Rail Access

0 The proposed Bayfront Road alternatives are located on or adjacent to

the present Conrail line along the Bayfront between West 12th Street

and East 6th Street, as shown on the map in Figure 1. The rela-

tively narrow corridor available for highway location and the desire to

avoid serious environmental impacts could require relocation, recon-

struction or abandonment of portions of the rail line.

0 Some abandonment options identified in the Bayfront Road Corridor

Design Location Study could have potential benefits for Bayfront land

development as well as for reduction of highway costs and impacts.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC,

0 At several points along the Bayfront, rail and the proposed Bayfront

Road cross. Whether at-grade or grade-separated crossings are

provided could affect traffic flow on the Bayfront Road, marketing

and cost impacts. on industrial sites, and highway construction costs.

The Future of Bayfront Rail Service

0 Because of increasing abandonment of rail lines by Conrail in recent

years, and particularly the abandonment of the Erie-Warren line, the

City of Erie is concerned about the future of the existing Bayfront

rail services.

0 The City wishes to pursue policies that will encourage continuance of

the service to present customers and support the marketing of

industrial sites in the Port Area.

The following sections of this report present the results of the study of

rail service to Erie's Bayfront and Port organized to address the above issues.

LAKE ERIE LAKE ERIE

PRIESOUE ISLE SAY rme PoRr or iRlr

UTT"

Do
van* &
P&

Cc
FROM 3m-
vex
ML

EAST SIN w
1 11 - -
3 EET COL
wEST GTH WIFF 0
G'T" S' REET EA E ROAD
FROOgTIER ST LAKE
pA*K- L.R. 86 ALT. IL 495 ALT. L-R. 95 AL
Sir ST" STINE& -y
L.R.-OG ALT-
UPS cc.
2EC

TERI STREET
% w
ct
OF.
CIT
a 4n
wb r
TWEST 12T ;TREET wb
--Z-zn7 - A, 'EAS E Z -J
WESTERm I v
",,LTEm',ATE a. L.R. 25029 L- ft. UR E 5 L-A.,Z2029 Spu
1-?% INTER"ApiG14%. 25029 iP EAST 12TH
dc
UNDER lam ft 1@
604r. Co. 5
bol z
a TV
flzff,- r "cu 0 OF aim
C-00 iz=
00 7'..
CORP

AL I k
0 L

U. S.

WEXE tl@TH STREET
Mo.- 4TH STREET
T
L JAt. U.S.
OWN m -= - t I
r I- -v- w, i m-
BUSINESSES CONTACTED
ERIE-WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA PORT AUTHORITY UNITED REFINERY PROP03ED ROADWAY CORRIDOR 1000, 0 500' 1000' 2000'
CONRAIL BAYFRONT LINE ON LAKE YAN9
CODAS CORPORATION ERIE SAND I GRAVEL SCALE IN FEET
(D (D

KOPPERS INC- PENELEC
PERRY SH-IPlUILDIN4 CORPORATION GENERAL ELECTRIC FIGURE I VWPL- CHKIX
HAMMERMILL PAPER COMPANY BAYFRONT-PORT, ACCESS ROAD
ERIE MARINE. INC.
0 , xc@ AND CONRAIL LINE IN BAYFRONT AREA AP44& IDATZ
FRONTIER LUNIER AS SHOWN
GAF SC-*LXt -
CITY OF ERIE@ PENNSYLVANIA DRAVWMG HUNSWIt
@ ERIE REDUCTIN Cf. 82-140-B3
"s-suladw

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 5

3. SURVEY OF BAYFRONT RAIL USERS

3. 1 Methodology

A key issue involving decisions for rail abandonment or service reduction

is the potential effect on user industries, and consequently, the associated

impact on employment resulting from plant closings or business losses that might

occur. Also important are the capability of rail-using industries to shift to

water, highway, or pipeline modes of transport, and the cost implications of

alternate-mode use.

In this study, extensive interviews with rail-using industries were

completed, and subsequent in-d epth discussions were held with representatives

of businesses whose operations were significantly dependent on rail services.

Following the early transmittal of preliminary findings to the City of Erie, the

Mayor sponsored a general meeting with Erie business and industrial represen-

tatives to invite their further comments on the need for rail service in the

Bayfront and on the locational aspects of the proposed Bayfront Road.

The survey of rail users was the first task undertaken in this study. It

was designed and conducted by Keystone University Research, Inc. , under

subcontract to GAI Consultants. The report on this survey is summarized in

this chapter and presented in Appendix A. Information derived from. subse-

quent meetings with potentially impacted industries is presented in Chapter 5.

3.2 Transportation Needs of Bayfront and Port Area Industries

Of major concern to the economic revitalization of the Bayfront is the need

for improved access to present industries and to sites identified for future

development. For Bayfront industries, transportation is the basic link among

(1)The material presented in this chapter is derived in part from "Survey of
Rail Users and Impact on the Economy," Report to GAI Consultants, Inc.,
by Keystone University Research Corp, presented in Appendix A.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 6

plants, warehouses and raw material sources. Since many firms are geographi-

cally divorced from their raw material sources and/or their market areas, trans-

portation (afforded by water, rail and truck to Bayfront industries) bridges the

gap between production and consumption.

The availability and choice of transportation modes for these firms can
affect other elements of their operations such' as packaging, production, plan-

ning, warehousing, facility location, information processing and inventory

control, and can ultimately affect their profitability. In selecting a specific

mode and carrier, businesses view transit time, reliability, capability, accessi-

bility and security as important service attributes, to be weighed heavily along

with transportation cost. These considerations underlie the evaluation of the

need for continued rail service and potential effects of rail abandonment or

relocation in Erie's Bayfront-Port Area.

3.3 Interviews with Industrial Firms

Existing users of rail service in the Bayfront Area were interviewed to

determine the extent of their present and future use of rail and other transport

modes. The survey identified the ability of rail users to shift to alternate

modes and assess the effects of increased transportation costs. Thirteen firms

were contacted initially. They are listed in Table 1 and are located on the map

in Figure 1. Of these, eight which indicated use of Bayfront rail were selected

for personal interviews. The transportation modes, cargo types, transportation

costs and tonnages for each of the eight firms interviewed are presented in

Table 2. The six Bayfront industries reported total annual movements of about

1,000,000 tons (about 30 percent by rail and 70 percent by truck). All of the

firms interviewed expressed an interest in rail service in the future.

Project 82-140
GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.

Table 1

BUSINESSES CONTACTED

Name of Business Address Nature of Business

Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority Room 507, Municipal Building Government; Port Authority

Codan Corporation* Foot of Wayne Street Freight Contracting

Koppers Inc. Foot of East Avenue Foundry Coke; Coke Ovens

Perry Shipbuilding Corporation Foot of Cranberry Street Lake Freighter Repair

Erie Marine, Inc. Foot of Holland Street Heavy Construction

GAF Foot of Sassafras Street Building Material/ Roofing

United Refinery** Foot of Cranberry Street Oil Refining

Erie Sand & Gravel** Foot of Sassafras Street Sand and Gravel

Penelec** Foot of Holland Street Electricity

General Electric*** East Lake Road Locomotive Production; Motorized Wheel

Hammermill Paper Company*** East Lake Road Fine Paper Manufacturing

Frontier Lumber*** 762 East 5th Street Lumber

Erie Reduction Co.** Foot of East Avenue Reduction

Codan Corporation is the contractor for the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority.
Firms did not envison any need for rail service.
Industries not located'on Bayfront.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 8

Generally, the firms surveyed indicated that transportation services are

the determining factors along with cost in the selection of transportation meth-

ods. The most common reason cited for the use of railroad service was the

need to transport bulky and heavy cargos. Most of the firms surveyed also

indicated that they have been satisfied with the services they received from the

railroad. Only two firms expressed some dissatisfaction, stemming mainly from

a one-railroad monopoly operation in this area.

3.4 Major Rail Users

The three major rail users of the Bayfront Conrail line are the

Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority, Koppers, and GAF. Information on

their rail needs and operations was derived from in-depth interviews with

representatives of these firms and is summarized here as it affects decisions

regarding continuation of rail service and the location of the Bayfront-Port

Access Road. More detailed discussion is presented in'Chapters 5 and 6.

Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority handles about 180,000 tons of

cargo per year. Projections are for about 300,000 tons per year in the 1980's.

The Port Authority reports that about 25 percent of this volume is by rail and

that rail access to the Port is essential for continued Port operations. The Port

Authority currently is marketing land in the Port area for industrial purposes.

Rail access to these properties is a positive attraction to new development.

The Koppers Company intends to be in its present location indefinitely and

could be looking to add other facilities in the Erie-area. During 1982, Koppers

handled 6,000 cars into and out of their plant. By 1983 the number is ex-

pected to be 9,000 per year. The capacity is 12,000 cars per year. Koppers

needs the Lake Yard as an important part of rail service to its plant and needs

a yard capacity of 150 cars. Koppers has indicated that either public or pri-

vate terminal railroad ownership of the Lake Yard would increase its costs and

Project 82-140

Table 2

CARGO BY TYPE, TONNAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION COST

Name of Business By Truck Tonnage Cost By Rail Tonnage Cost

Erie-Western Pa. coal 145,000 tons/yr. (est.) $2.50/net ton coal 35,000 ton/yr. (est. $ 4.50/metric ton
Port Authority and special ores 2. 10/metric ton steel slaps 2.50/metric ton
Codan Corporation pig iron 1.70/metric ton machinery 11. 00/metric ton
steel coils .10/100 lbs. transformers 11.00/metric ton
steel claps . 10/100 lbs. locomotives 11.00/metric ton
steel scrap .40/metric ton steam boilers 11. 00/metric ton
lumber 1. 50/metric ton logs .50/100 lbs.
machinery
miscellaneous

Koppers, Inc. coke 560 tons coke/day average coal 800 tons per day average
maintenance $12.00/ton chemicals $20.00/ton
supplies
chemicals

GAF asphalt 53,000 tons no data asphalt 53,000 tons no data
granules asphalt/year available granules asphalt/year available
f elt (combined rail and (confidential) felt (combined rail and (confidential)
roofing shingles truck) roofing shingles truck)
finished products finished products

Penelec coal 400,000 tons/yr.
flyash

Perry Shipbuilding machinery parts 100-200 tons/year total bulky and heavy $14,000/year
Corporation paints $20,000/year machinery in 1981
general cargo
steel

Erie Marine coal 100 tons per year $26,000/year none since 1974
repair parts year
steel products
misc. supplies

Hammermill Paper Co. paper 460 tons per day $40 million per wood pulp $16 million per
supplies year chemicals year
chemicals wood chips
packaging paper
wood chips
coal

General Electric coal total approx. steel products 28,000 tons per year $500,000/year
steel products $10 million/year
air compressors
elec. motor parts 50%-80-120 tons
engine blocks 60%-130-160 tons
pistons
diesel parts
misc.
By Ship: finished locomotives (370 per year)

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 10

would not be economically viable alternatives. Reactions by Koppers repre-

sentatives to specific location alternatives for the Bayfront-Port Access Road

are presented in Chapter 5 of this report.

GAF currently transports about 50,000 tons of cargo per year from the

Erie plant. As the current recession has substantially reduced producton

levels, GAF expects to move more tonnage in the near future. GAF intends to

remain in Erie, and needs both rail and truck access to its plant. The Erie

plant is part of GAF's nationwide production system, and receives materials by

both modes. GAF requires 600 feet of tail track to handle rail cars into and

out of the plant. Future usage by GAF could range between 26 and 2000 cars

per year depending upon economic conditions, competitiveness of rail and truck

costs and limitations of GAF's suppliers and customers to handle materials by

truck.

Availability of Other Modes

All of the firms contacted have h'ghw ccess. Those companies that

have access to water transportation throug existing docks include Koppers,

the Port Authority (port, industrial site and grain elevators), Erie Marine,

Penelec, Erie Sand and Gravel, GAF via Erie Sand and Gravel, and Perry

Shipbuilding.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.

4. AREAS OF POSSIBLE RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT

4.1 Background

Prior to the start of this study, the possibility of abandonment of several

lines had been advanced. Thos e which were of concern to the City of Erie

were:

0 The Conrail Erie Bayfront Line and Lake Yard.

0 The Conrail line between Johnsonburg, Pa., and Irvine, Pa.

0 The Conrail line between Erie, Pa., and Warren, Pa.

Early in the study period the Erie to Warren line was abandoned. Of

major concern to the City was the possible use of this line as a conduit for coal

bound for export lake markets through the Port of Erie. A previous evaluation

of coal shipment potentials through Erie's Port is presented in Reference 2.

That study estimated that future coal movement through the Port would be

about 120,000. tons per year, all by truck. In 1982 no coal was shipped

through the Port. Even with the Erie-Warren line in service, Erie did not have

good direct rail feeder service for coal. Both United Oil and the GAF plant

had commodities shipped on the Erie-Warren line. United Oil, however, was not

affected by the abandonment as it indicated no further need for rail access.

The abandonment, however, did affect the GAF plant, as is discussed in

Chapter 5. Also, in May 1982, a group of Pennsylvania businessmen agreed to

purchase the Johnsonburg to Irvine line and in July 1982, service was initiated

through a private lessee.

The future of portions of the Conrail Bayfront line, however, remained in

question. Specifically, early alternatives for the on-going Bayfront Road

Design Location Study showed clear cost and environmental advantages if por-

tions of the line could be abandoned, particularly west of the GAF plant. It

was also recognized that further elimination of rail west of Holland Street could

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 12

reduce highway costs. Additionally, it appeared that provision of a

grade-crossing where the highway would cross the spur line to the Koppers

plant (rather than a grade separation of rail and highway) would have cost

advantages. For these reasons, the compatibility of the proposed road (needed

for highway access to the Bayfront) and the existing rail line (used by

Bayfront industries) became a major concern of the City and the focus of its

policy toward continuation of service to in-place industries.

4.2 Rail Relocation or Abandonment Alternatives

The Corridor Design Location Study of the Bayfront-Port Access Road has

identified several alternative alignments and several alternative rail relocation,

reconstruction and abandonment options. These along with two other possible

options are shown as Schemes IA, IB, IC, II and III in Figure 2.

Scheme IA eliminates the Bayfront Rail Line entirely from near East Avenue

on the east to 12th Street on the west.

Scheme IB maintains rail service from the east to just east of State Street.

Scheme IC maintains rail service from the east to west of the GAF plant,

relocates the Lake Yard to the north of the proposed road and provides a tail

track for GAF plant service. This scheme eliminates trackage from west of GAF

to West 12th Street.

Scheme II maintains rail service from the east to the United Oil property

near Cranberry Street, and relocates the Lake Yard to the north of the road,

and maintains rail service to the GAF plant.

Scheme III retains rail service from the east end to the west end near West

12th Street.

In these schemes the retention of service requires some relocation or

reconstruction of trackage to accommodate the proposed highway right-of-way.

The following chapters discuss the potential effects on Bayfront industries,

non-industrial developments, the environment and local economy.

LAKE ERIE LAKE ERIE
"*log
PRESOUE ISLE BAY rsr@PoRr or, i-Rlr

fusult
so" Lmom
aftn'"hes

man* 0 ca ftc.
CORP PLAWT
10 Co.
LAKE VARD
FRONT
DOUSE lwa

GMTRUM CIL
"EST I"ND STREET EAST " TIM

'lid
FlIM rr fm
r,
Le LiAhms" a Er 0
bal F*OsmEot i'T14 At R?"TE 2 EA LAKE ROAD
PARK-
-y- 4 5 A L.R. 95 A LT.
I - 49
L-R.-86 ALT- 5 ad [cot 91
.4 uj
Its
ola,
w 6- ET z
jr 4r z
w
be -j
FT-111 a
'c 39 E 12 TH T
WESTERw 0 bo Z -J
1-79 INTERCHAN@jQtj v- L-R. ZSOZ9
ALTEitkATE's. 25029 SPUR E 5 EAST WTH
x (UNDER I L- 25029 s n
ComeSTRUCTOW) mW& z M
cl or 49 crry L.R.25117
C E3 81 OF ZL"N
ob
CO L x I -i
C RAIL CORP
in,
Iti,

k. a w Rwy

IZ
0
BUFFA- 0 RIJAD L -87

cl,
WEST STREET
L. 0- 212 F'1EAST ZGT14 STftEETj
U:S.-

Ij
.4 1 110 F--Q

mom um low
8"LE 114 FWF Pn*OSW Roadway Corrkkw rm-m L FIGURE,2 cmm
ALTERNATE RAIL SCHEMES
ERIE RAIL STUDY

CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA GNAWING PoUlMna
82-14044

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 14

5. EFFECTS ON BAYFRONT INDUSTRIES

5.1 Bayfront Rail Access and Road Location Alternatives

The following observations are based on a review of the alternative

Bayfront Road location schemes presented in the prevous chapter from the

perspective of rail usage in the Bayfront and Port areas. They are presented

to assist the City of Erie to identify rail abandonment and relocation options

that have potential for improving access to Bayfront properties, reducing nega-

tive environmental effects, or reducing highway construction cost associated

with maintaining Bayfront rail service. The effects of eliminating or altering

rail service to Bayfront industries is discussed in some detail, along with pos-

sible industry reactions such as the use of other transport modes, plant

relocation, internal operational changes and plant closings. Table 3 briefly

summarizes the rail schemes and possible effects, and key locations are shown

in Figure 3. Discussion of these schemes focuses first on areas west of the

GAF plant and then on areas east of the GAF plant.

5.2 Areas West of the GAF Plant:

Schemes IA, IB and IC would result in cost savings f rom not

reconstructing the rail line west of the GAF plant to West 12th Street. They

further eliminate or reduce environmental effects associated with parkland and

recreation since rail right-of-way could be made available for the Bayfront

highway, which might otherwise infringe on these sensitive areas. These

advantages have been identified in the Corridor Design Location Study and EIS

(Ref. 4) which discusses the issue in detail. These schemes would enhance the

accessibility of Bayfront properties between the GAF plant and Cranberry

Street, and help to encourage new development in this area. Conrail presently

has no customer or active sidings in this area and can serve active customers

in the Bayfront area via the eastern connection with the mainline, To maintain

Project 82-140

Table 3

BAYFRONT AREA RAIL SERVICE

Rail Schemes
Bayfront Line Lake Yard Summary of Effects
Scheme Reconstruct Abandon Reconstruct Abandon Bayfront Highway Bayfront Land Use Present Industries Other
IA None All Bayfront None All Lower, overall Negates future Eliminates rail to Facilitates PennDOT
track cost eliminates rail service to all Bayfront 12th St. project
or reduces Port industry industries
impacts sites

IB Treatment Plant East of State Relocate north or None Reduces cost Encourages new Eliminates rail Facilitates PennDOT
to State St. St. to 12th St. south of highway between Parade development be- service to indus- 12th St. project
St. and 12th St. tween State St. tries west of
and United Oil State St.
Site

IC Treatment Plant to West of GAF Relocate north of None Eliminates or re- Encourages new Discontinues ser- Facilitates PennDOT
west of GAF to 12th St. highway duces impacts at development in vices to United 12th St. project
Frontier Park and Bayfront area be- Oil.
School Courts. tween United Oil
and Pump House.

Reduces cost be- Reduces accessi- No opportunity for
tween GAF and bility of Erie Sand future rail service
12th Street. and Gravel Site. west of GAF.

11 Treatment Plant to West of Relocate north of None Eliminates or re- No advantage No impact Facilitates PennDOT
west of United United Re- highway duces impacts at 12th St. Project
Refining Co. fining Co. to Frontier Park
12th St. and School Courts.

Reduces cost be-
tween United Oil
and 12th St.

III Treatment Plant None Relocate north of None No advantage No advantage No impact PennDOT 12th St.
to 12th St. highway project more costly
Disadvantages
Impacts at
Frontier Park.

Higher Cost

7
SEPARATED RAIL
Is PRESENT GRADE e.PROPO8ED RAIL-AT - GRADE CROSSING'
e RAIL SERVICE'DISCONTINUED CROSSING. AT STATE STREET OF PORT -ACCESS DRIVE*WAY
WEST OF UNITED OIL CORP...- AT HOLLAND STREET-
LAKE ERIE WTFRN&TIOMIAL ix
LAKE ERIE
PRESOUE ISLE BAY r*vz, PoRr oF iwlf- 9 PROPOSED GRADE, ".-SEPARATED
TRACK* NEEDED AT GAF PLANT RAIL CROSSING OF - BAYFRONT ROAD
600# -tAJL"'

PUBLIC
DOCK LITTON PROPOSED RAIL AT - GRADE'CROSSING
"I mrs
OF BAYFRONT ROAD AT KOPPERS -PLANT
TMWItE 5
WA'rFAWO*K PA. v PL m
&F ELEC ca.
C011P Co. Id
LAKE YARD W
f ONT Sr I a---
GE81I VWfAVN 6- MERRULL
PAPPER
viol Gcm" lip CCL
t3T 2NO STREET STRE shmaim
ALJ X
C4
be Ix
to
WEST 6TH STftF 7 z LUMM
RONTIER ST 6 T" S MATE 2 1 E ROAD
PARK LA. 86 ALT A. 495 AL A L-A ALT. 5
ST 6 111 5TR ET '.3
ECK
L.R. 86 90-. - I W
ir
MFC. Co. 49 -9
0 r--w-W
T at W
L TENTE ... 2 =5 cc
_0
a:
ER
Cl- .3
uj ICIT
Ila __j
12 TH STREET n
HE n z _j
F f..
EAST 12 bi
WESTERN

EAST 12TH S' Fr
1-79 INTERCHANG L.;L 25029 R. 25029 SPUR E 250 9 SP E rR
(UNDER ALTERNATEW CC J Jn za 5
x Ix W L.R.25117
0 CGRISTRUCTION) *0 MFG. Go. Cr V ENcRGT 3
cr ...... !!Tt! 10 1 OF ZURN i
m Oft 3:
CONRAIL CORP
cc :j _j low
Ix
4m (Wn

0
L
4L CI
F R W4
log El j="[ i
0: :0
RWY il@s@- RWTJ
.j

Us-
10=

STR T

AST STR
2 'EAST 2 TH EET
L@,R. 67 S.20
L

"7 1000 0 500 tooo
2000
SCALE IN FEET F I GURE 3 OWN. CHKO.
V
C44 Proposed Roadway corridor BAYFRONT RAIL SERVICE AND BAYFRONT-PORT-
14 1
ACCESS ROADILOCATION APPO. DATE
Engumwe, Goosogtift nowmrs SCALE:
z Enwwonmemai Spomfto CITY OF Me. PENNSYLVANIA NUMBER
z 570 BONNY Rd - Fftebuf9k
m Mtn 09od F4L 15146
Cc -140-B5

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
17

rail service to the GAF plant will require a 600-foot tail track west of the

plant.

Perry Shipbuilding has indicated a desire to expand into a rail car repair

business in the future. Elimination of rail service between 12th Street and west

of GAF would preclude such an expansion at the present site.

Conrail railroad right-of-way from State Street west to Twelfth Street is

approximately 22.9 acres as shown on Erie deed records, and 36.3 acres as

shown on Conrail records (see Figure B-1 in Appendix B). Conrail real estate

professionals have examined the above right-of-way, and estimated that when

appraisals are performed by Conrail and by a public agency interested in pur-

chase for the Bayfront Roadway, the appraisals will range from $0.50 per

square foot to $1.00 per square fo ot. Cost to purchase the property would be

expected to range from $500,000 to $1,500,000, depending upon a deed search,

appraisals, and negotiations.

Scheme II will result in less cost savings than Schemes IA, IB and IC but

will have similar advantages in reducing parkland impacts through possible use

of rail property for highway right-of-way. Under this scheme highway access

to Bayfront properties between State Street and United Oil would require

grade- crossings, possibly inhibiting new development in this area of the

Bayfront. Under this scheme rail service could be extended to the Perry

Shipbuilding site.

Scheme III has no advantage over Scheme IC and II west of GAF, as it

would cost more and could result in negative parkland effects, as identified in

the Bayfront Road EIS (Ref. 4).

5.3 Areas East of the GAF Plant:

Scheme IA would result in significant cost savings for the construction of

the Bayfront Road. However, the economic effects, both present and future,

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
18

would be enormous , as discussed in Chapter 6. This scheme was not an alter-

native in the Bayfront Road corridor Location Study and EIS but was

considered in this Rail Study in order to estimate the economic effects of the

extreme case of complete abandonment of the rail line between East Avenue and

12th Street on the west.

Between the GAF Plant and the east end of the proposed Bayfront Road.,

Schemes IC, II and III are the same. For these schemes, State Street would be

reconstructed so that the rail line can pass under State Street north of the

road. East of State Street the Bayfront Road would rise in elevation to cross

the railroad on structure in the area east of Parade Street. The road again

crosses the rail spur to the Koppers Plant near Wayne Street. For these

schemes, highway access to Bayfront properties would cross the rail line at

Holland Street. In these schemes the Conrail Lake Yard is relocated north of

the Bayfront Road right-of-way.

If rail service to the GAF plant is retained, (as in Schemes IC, II and 111)

this relocation of the Lake Yard to the north is necessary so that a rail cross-

ing of the proposed Bayfront Port Access Road at GAF can be avoided, and the

geometry of the State Street grade-separated crossing can be accommodated. If

rail service to GAF is eliminated, (as in Scheme IB) the State Street intersec-

tion could be easier to construct, and the Conrail Lake Yard could be located

south of the Bayfront Road, with some resultant advantages, such as:

- Cost savings in not having to rebuild the rail line west of State
Street.

- Less costly intersection and improved geometry at State Street.

- Access by vehicular traffic to Bayfront parcels west of State Street
without an at-grade crossing of the Conrail tracks near Holland
Street.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 19

Elimination of the need for grade separation with the railroad yard
near Parade State, resulting in cost savings.

Reduced visual and noise impact on Front Street neighborhood.

In this case, locating the Lake Yard south of the Bayfront Road. and

shifting the yard 1000 feet to the east would permit traffic serving the existing

and future Bayfront industrial developments to access the industrial sites and

the Bayfront Road without crossing Conrail at grade (Appendix C). This is

particularly important at the connection to Bayfront property at Holland Street

where truck movements could be several hundred a day. The Bayfront-Port

Access Road will attract truck traffic 'away from local streets, and use of

streets such as Parade Street and Holland Street by non-local truck traffic will

not be necessary. For example, trucks traveling from the east on 1-90 can get

to the proposed Bayfront Industrial Park quicker by using 1-90, 1-79, and the

Bayfront-Port Access Road (estimated 25 minutes) than by exiting 1-79 at

T.R. 8 and using Parade Street (estimated 29 minutes). However, if major

improvements to present restrictions on TR 430 or TR 531 are made, truck

travel time to the Bayfront via Parade Street would be comparable to that via

the Bayfront Road, and non-local truck trips would be attracted to local streets

unless truck use of Parade Street were discouraged. Also, truck traffic from

the south using TR 19 and 1-79, and from the west on 1-90, will be

attracted to the Bayfront-Port Access Road for Bayfront and some central

destinations, due to travel-time advantages. Of considerable significance to the

City will be the removal from local streets of several hundred daily coal truck

movements generated by the Penelec plant and by the Port Authority terminal,

if truck use of the Bayfront Road is encouraged. (Further discussion and

travel time estimates for trucks using alternate routes to the Bayfront are

presented in Appendix C.)

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 20

In summary, locating the Conrail Lake Yard south of the proposed

Bayfront Highway offers advantages, but depends to a large extent on the

elimination of rail service to GAF (Scheme IB), which causes economic dis-

benefits as addressed in Chapter 6.

5.4 Major Industrial Effects

GAF and Koppers are the two major industrial users of the Bayfront Rail

Line which would be most seriously effected by its abandonment or by reduction

in service. To aid in understanding the relationship between their businesses

and their need for rail, detailed descriptions of their operations and shipping

priorities are presented. The following further discusses the present use of

rail, future needs and possible effects of elimination of rail service on the Erie

operations of the GAF plant and the Koppers plant.

GAF. GAF nationally has improved its productivity by recently divesting

itself of 50 per cent of its various operations. The company has retained its

building materials operation, of which the Erie plant is a key facility. Each

GAF plant is operated on an individual cost system. The Erie building is old

but structurally sound; machinery is in relatively good shape and the plant is

eff ective. The Erie plant employs 70 persons for one shift and up to 200 at

full capacity. During boom times (e - g. , 1979) three shifts work around the

clock.

Material shipments into the plant are 50 percent by truck and 50 percent

by rail. Outbound shipments to customers are 98 percent by truck. However,

outbound products to other plants could also be made by rail, depending on

transportation costs. The Erie plant could possibly be operating at full capa-

city during 1983, as the market place for building materials is rapidly chang-

ing. For inbound shipments GAF estimates that it will use 25 to 1200 rail cars

per year with its present operations and possibly increase use to 2000 rail cars

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 21

per year in the next 5 years. Rail deregulation and changes in the source of

materials could increase rail use. GAF uses 4500 trucks per year with its

present operation for inbound shipments, and future truck use is anticipated to

be in the same range.

GAF ships about two percent of its outbound tonnage to customers by rail.
Finished' material normally is shipped to other plants by rail (250 rail cars per

year). Outbound trucking movements are about 25-30 trucks per day now and

40-45 trucks per day during boom times.

Generally, GAF believes rail is the life blood of its Erie plant, and the

plant could become inefficient and non-competitive without rail. If rail service

to the GAF plant were eliminated, GAF foresees several specific problems:

0 Increased costs to transport and handle all products and materials by
truck may exceed the point at which the plant is profitable.

o Granular manufacturer(s) cannot handle all shipments by truck alone;
rail shipment of all granular materials may be required.

0 The plant at Erie might not be able to handle all movements by truck.
Inadequate space, confusion and potential accidents are perceived to
be very serious problems.

0 Sources of asphalt used by GAF change frequently, increasing the
probable dependence on rail.

0 Other suppliers might not be able to handle all tonnages by truck
alone. (Suppliers change from time to time.)

0 The temperature of asphalt must be kept at 3500 F. Rail cars have
heat transfer coils for on-site heating. Trucks are insulated, but
normally have no means to heat asphalt.

GAF needs 600 feet of tail track to handle its rail movements. At times of

full capacity, 15 cars out per day would be possible with anticipated changes in

product line. Conrail has been limiting switching to once per day during the

past 6 years. Storage of cars on Conrail facilities for 2 to 3 days is necessary

to avoid demurrage charge.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 22

If rail service to GAF were eliminated and all inbound and outbound move-

ments were by truck, the GAF plant would generate about 17,000 truck move-

ments per year under current conditions, 20,000 per year under current capa-

city; and 27,000 under increased capacity anticipated in the next five years.

The elimination of rail service and the handling of all shipment by truck and of

water could result in costs sufficiently high that the plant may become non-

competitive.

One alternative is for GAF to relocate to a new Erie location that has rail

service. However, since there is no market to the north of Erie, the city's

location is not geographically ideal for GAF and the cost of a new plan, in Erie

might not be warranted. The cost to build a new plant is in the range of

$15,000,000. The cost of relocation to an existing facility that would use exist-

ng equipment is estimated to be $13,000,000. However, lost production during

relocation could be very high. GAF would like to keep the relocation option

open, as in 4 to 6 years circumstances for its business could be different than

they are now, making relocation more attractive to all parties. Another alterna-

tive, should rail service be eliminated, is to unload materials east of State

Street and convey them by pipe or conveyor to the plant. Based on GAF's

experience with conveyor belts, truck loading, and piping, this alternative is

not cost competitive with other options.

Koppers. Conrail's Bayfront line and Lake Yard is an essential part of

the Koppers plant operation. Koppers' traffic accounts for about 80 percent of

the tonnage on this line, and the continued use by Koppers at present or

higher levels insures the long range availability of rail service to the Bayfront.

Koppers intends to remain in its present location in Erie in the future and

might add other facilities in the Erie area. Currently between 140 and 160

persons are employed at the plant, depending upon capacity levels.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
23

Since the rail service to the Koppers plant now crosses East Bay Drive at

grade, and the proposed Bayfront-Port Access Road will be located on the

right-of-way of East Bay Drive at this location, the potential conflict between

rail and highway traffic is an issue about which Koppers Company representives

are concerned.

During 1982, there were approximately 6000 railroad cars (3,000 in one

direction) serving Koppers and crossing East Bay Drive at the location of the

proposed Bayfront Road. By 1983 the number is expected to be 9000 per year

(4500 in one direction). Of these 4500 cars, 3000 cars from the Norfolk and

Western Railroad and other carriers will move coal into he site, and 1500 cars

from Conrail will move coke from the site. The same cars are not used for coal

and coke. The maximum capacity of cars in and out is 12,000 cars per year.

Daily, an average of 45 cars will cross the proposed Bayfront-Port Access

Road, with up to 80 cars possible on any given day.

Rail cars are moved across the proposed Bayfront Road location from 6 to

21 times per day with 9 to 15 crossings on a normal day. At any one time,

traffic would be delayed from 5-15 minutes or possibly longer. The speed of

the train (2 to 3 mph) cannot be increased because of the need to stop the cars

on the north side of the crossing. This problem is accentuated by the track

grade, sharp curves, and switches on both sides of the crossing. While the

track is in only fair condition, improving it will not eliminate the above condi-

tions restricting speed. Two typical daily options for rail service crossing the

proposed Bayfront Road to Koppers are described in Appendix D. The se-

quence varies daily, in order to be most efficient.

Koppers believes that an at-grade crossing will be hazardous and that

people using the proposed Bayfront Road will not be willing to accept the time

delays. In Kopper's judgment, it is important that a grade separation be

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 24

provided. Currently the grade crossing at East Bay Drive is working without

serious complaint because of several special circumstances:

0 Traffic using the road is light and is destined to the Port.

0 The plant has been operating at 60 percent of capacity.

0 Conrail is operating with only one shift and is not crossing East Bay
Drive during peak highway traffic periods.

0 Koppers is currently (during winter) using coal from stockpiles.

Koppers needs the Lake Yard to be maintained as an important part of

railroad operations to service the plant. Koppers believes a Lake Yard capacity

of 150 cars (50 foot length average) would be adequate. The maximum number

of cars serving Koppers that have been backlogged in the last 5 years has been

about 600. Koppers' reaction to public ownership of the Lake Yard or private

terminal railroad ownership is that either option would increase Koppers' costs

and would not be economically viable.

Koppers currently has about 20 trucks daily that would use the proposed

Bayfront-Port Access Road. All trucks could access the proposed road from

the present Port Ac cess Road to help permit the least expensive, simplest

possible at-grade ramped intersection at East Avenue.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 25

6. BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

6.1 Effects on Future Development

Studies of land use and development potentials in Erie's Bayfront and Port

areas have offered recommendations for improved land use along the Bayfront

generally (Ref. 1) and, more recently, for specific residential, industrial and

commercial projects (Ref. 2). The latter study identified several sites as

having market potential (Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7). All of these locations are

near Conrail's Bayfront rail line and alternative rights-of-way of the proposed

Bayfront Road. They include:

Residential

"Lake Erie Mews" apartments to be developed on the present Erie
Sand and Gravel site.

"Erie Bluff" single-family and townhouse units to be developed on a
piece of property to be made available to the city near the Zurn head-
quarters along the western Bayfront.

Industrial

The Port Industrial Park to be developed on 27 acres adjacent to the
Port Terminal.
area. A Foreign Trade Zone to be established and developed in this same

Commercial

"Niagara Place" restaurant and retail complex to be developed at the
City Dock.

Sport Fishing and other tourism development to be carried out at
various locations along the bayfront.

The site of the proposed "Lake Erie Mews" apartments is bounded on

the south by the rail line between State Street and the GAF plant

(Figure 6). Elimination of this portion of the rail line would obviate a

railroad grade crossing of a driveway to the site, permit better highway

"mmalmomm mom ow,mamlm nw)tm "mism

PRESQUE ISLE BAY

PORT
INDUSTRIAL
LAKE ERIE MEWS PARK
& NIAGARA PLACE (SEE 10
(SEE FIGURE 6)

ERI
BLU F CONgAIL
(SEE
PROPOSED TO EAST
BAYFRONT/PORT
ACCESS ROAD LAKE ROAD
(SEE FIGURE 1)

TO 1-79

FIGURE 4
OWN. CHKD.
SITES FOR DAYFRONT RESIDENTAL,COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT APPD. - DATE

Ell--- SCALE:
CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA DRAWING NUMBER
82-140-Bl
REV
A @.
F (A
;I @;@

0 E A S AT-2

13
:],71
ELI
LL.
J,
-'7j
Lj L
IrOOD E
0.0 C
F1 0

In 2:

0
--3

m
E@.

L
L
L

M
7 01
Lu

UJI
ir
V

F I GURE 5 DWN. CHKD.
CONCEPTUAL SKETCH OF ERIE BLUFF

APPD. DATE
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Engineers - Geologists - Planners SCALE:
Z Environmental Specialists CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA DRAWING NUMBER
570 Beatty Rd. - Pittsburgh,
Monroeville, Pa. 15146 82-140 A2
X 412-856-6400 REV
M

1':@'PUBLIC DOCk--- STATE STREET

"P.
IL

so ME=

7 O'l

-zy-
CP

W
Li
CO

u')
qT FIGURE 6 OWN. CHKD.
Cn - I
CONCEPTUAL SKETCH OF LAKE ERIE MEWS AND
NIAGARA PLACE APPD. DATE
CONSU NITS, INC.
.2

Fng nears Geologists Planners SCALE:
Z Environmental Specialists CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA DRAWING NUMBER
570 Beatty Rd. - Pittsburgh.
monroevine, Pa. 15146 82-140 A3
IX, 412,&%.64W REV

BRUNING 44-142 43457-1

T
Ss

ZO PRESOUEISLE
SAY
Mal

C@
= , 1. -
C-3
rn

4=
C'3

C=) rTl#

C->

...........

rn
...........
.............

ft:

C-9
......................

..............
...........

:W.W.

P, ........
..... . .. .....
> .......
............ ........ .. ......
z
c(O
z
C,
X
...................

CONRAIL LAKE YARD

7r "97
F
4#0

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 30

access to the property, free more 'land for development and substantially

enhance the attractiveness and marketability of the development. T he

Niagara Place project would not be directly affected by rail abandonment.

The Erie Blu ff units would be located west of the rail line on the

bluff above Cascade Creek and the Bay (Figure 5). Access to this site

via the Bayfront Road or Cranberry Street would be accomplished without

a railroad grade crossing if the rail line were eliminated, and the quality

of the view from this site would be markedly improved.

The Port Industrial Park and Foreign Trade Zone (Figure 7) would

have a greater potential for attracting new business if rail service from

the east is maintained and extended into the industrial park to conform

with planned future parcelization.

6.2 Economic Effects

The economic effects of Bayfront Rail Line abandonment for each of the

several schemes discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 were examined for each of the

twelve industries contacted. The results are presented in this section and are

summarized in Table 4, which lists all of the companies that were contacted and

shows their indication of their use of the Bayfront Rail Line. Also indicated is

whether these firms would be effected by rail line abandonment under the

several schemes discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. For those affected, estimates

of the costs and disbenefits are shown for each rail abandonment scheme. The

economic effects of rail abandonment or reduction in level of service will be

largely related to impacts on these rail users.

At the time the industry contacts were made for this study (1982) most

firms indicated that their commodity shipments were lower than normal, and that

once the economy recovers, shipments by truck and rail could increase signifi-

cantly . The economic effects of rail abandonment or reduced level of service

M man M so M M WN M M M

Table 4

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS

Indication of Affected by Bayfront Potential Economic Effects
Use of Bayfront Rail Line Abandonment of Bayfront Rail Line Abandonment
Business Contacted Rail Line Schemes Schemes
IA IB IC II III, IA IB IC II III
Erie-Western Pennsylvania Yes Yes No No No No $100,000/yr* -0- -0- -0- -0-
Port Authority and
Codan Corporation
(Port Authority Contractor)

Koppers inc. Yes Yes No No No No 5,000,000/yr -0- -0- -0- -0-

Perry Shipbuilding Corp. Yes Yes Yes Yes No No $200/yr(a) $200/yr(a) $200/yr(a)

liammermill Paper Company No No No No No No -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-

Erie Marine Inc. No No No No No No -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-

General Electric No No No No No No -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-

GAF Yes Yes Yes No No No $700,000/yr** $700,000/yi@*-O- -0- -0-

United Refinery No No No No No No -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-

Erie Sand &Gravel No No No No No No -0- -0- -0- -0- -0--

Penelec No No No No No No -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-

Frontier Lumber No No No No No No -0- -0- -0- -0-

Erie Reduction Co. No No No No No No -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-

*Lack of rail would also jeopardize potential $10,000,000 in wages and benefits of future port industrial development.
**Added transportation cost. If GAF were to relocate to another site in Erie, the annualized cost is approximately $3,000,000
If GAF were to relocate to another site outside of Erie, the annualized disbenefit is estimated at $2, 000, 000 to $6, 000, 000.

(a) Affects possible future rail car business.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 32

were estimated quantitatively, where possible, and reflect the costs and benefits

associated with normal (non-recession) business volumes.

With elimination of rail service, GAF would have several options - shift to

truck, relocate its plant to a place in Erie with site and rail amenities com-

parable to its present location, or relocate out of Erie. In recession periods

shift to truck transport would result in marginal cost increases. However, in

periods of normal to high production, rail provides a cos t- competitive alterna-

tive to truck transport for specific commodity shipments. Its elimination would

result in higher costs for GAF to do business at the Erie plant. The origins

and destinations of GAFs materials and products, as well as unit cost data, are

proprietary and were not furnished to the Consultants. However, the potential

cost for removal of rail service to GAF is germane to this study and, accord-

ingly, estimates were made by the Consultant. For periods of high production,

the added. transport cost is estimated to be about $700,000 annually, but de-

pends on the suitability of materials for multi-modal transport.

For GAF to relocate to another site in Erie with rail service could cost

$13,000,000 to $15,000,000. To ascertain the advantage of this option, the

comparison of the cost of relocation against highway construction cost savings

and other benefits would have to be made, as discussed in Chapter 5. If the

plant were relocated outside of Erie, between 70 and 200 jobs would be lost

locally, and the estimated annual loss in wages and benefits would range be-

tween $2,000,000 and $6,000,000.

If rail service to Koppers were eliminated, the added cost to move all

commodities by truck would render the Koppers plant operation non -competitive,

and it is highly likely that the plant would close. Also, the same result could

occur if the cost of moving coal and coke into and out of the plant by rail were

to increase to the point where the Koppers operation would be non- competitive.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 33

In either case, closing of the plant would result in the loss of 140 to 160 jobs,

depending on production levels, at an estimated $4,000,000 to $5,000,000 wage

and benefit loss.

Of its total 180,000 ton per year volume, the Port of Erie presently moves

about 35,11110 tons of cargo by rail annually.. Future projections for non-coal

traffic through the Port are 160,000 tons/year, about 50 percent by rail.

Based on present average revenues per ton, the Port could lose over $100,000

per year in revenues if rail service to the Port were not available.

Future industrial development concepts for the Port area propose both rail

and highway access (Figure 7). Assuming that half the estimated future *devel-

opment and employment potential of the site would be for industries relying on

rail, the loss in employment potential if rail is not available is estimated to be

about 400, representing over $10,000,000 per year in wages and benefits.

In 'addition to the effects on GAF, Koppers and the Port Authority

abandonment of rail from west of GAF to 12th Street would preclude future

direct rail service to Perry Shipbuilding. Although Conrail indicated that

revenues from sources west of GAF would not justify the retention of a service

track there, the lack of service could inhibit expansion of rail-dependent busi-

ness (such as rail-car repair) by Perry Shipbuilding with some potential future

negative economic effects.

6.3 Environmental Effects

This Rail Study is concerned with the environmental issues advanced by

possibilities of rail line abandonment in the Bayfront and deals with effects of

shifting from rail to truck, particularly if truck traffic were to use local

streets.

It should be noted that detailed and comprehensive environmental studies

have been undertaken by the City of Erie in the Bayfront-Port Access Road

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 34

Design Location Study and EIS, and deal with the issues regarding impacts of

the proposed Bayfront Road (Ref. 4). That study and supporting Technical.

Basis Reports are available from the City of Erie.

In that study the elimination of rail service between 12th Street and the

GAF plant (as would occur in Schemes IA, IB or IC in Figure 2) was identified

as an option that would permit much greater flexibility in alignment and right-

of-way requirements for the Bayfront Road. This action (with future right-

of-way purchase) would permit alignment options having lesser environmental

effects in the area of Frontier Park, the High School, Cascade Creek and the

bluff facing Presque Isle Bay. Because there is' no active Conrail customer

between 12th Street and the GAF plant, no additional truck movements would be

generated by abandoning this section of track.
The abandonment of Conrail's Erie to Warren line' has already increased

truck movements to the GAF plant. If all GAF rail service were eliminated

(Schemes IA and IB), truck movements into and out of the GAF plant would

increase by about 45 per day in periods of high production. If access by these

trucks were by the Bayfront Road, 1-90 and 1-79, local streets would not be

.mpacted. However, if truck access were by the Bayfront Road via Parade

Street or Holland Street, or directly by State Street, local streets would be

affected.

If rail service to the Port Area were eliminated (Scheme IA), and trucks

transported all commodities to and from the Koppers plant, truck movements

could increase by 150 to 250 per day. (The likelihood of this occurring is low,

since the added cost for truck transport will render the Koppers plant non-

competitive, as discussed in the previous section.) Another 20 trucks per day

would result from Port Authority shipments.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 35

To examine the environmental issues in more detail, the possible effects on

air quality and noise levels of increased truck traffic which might result from

the various Bayfront rail abandonment schemes were estimated and are sum-

marized in Tables 5, 6A, 6B and 7. In Table 53, the industries which would be

affected by rail abandonment are listed with the approximate increase in daily

truck traffic for each scheme. Tables 6A, 6B and 7 present estimates of noise

levels and CO concentrations associated with additional traffic on East Street

and on State Street at two receptor sites--the Dr. Gertrude A. Barber Center

on East Avenue and Hamot Medical Center on State Street.

Air quality estimates for 1981, 1985 with and without rail abandonment,

and 2004 with and without rail abandonment were made utilizing the

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Air Quality Screening Process

(PaDOT, 1982) and Circular Letter C-2998 (1981). This procedure provides a

worst case carbon monoxide (CO) concentration at a receptor given certain

traffic volumes, traffic compositions, and vehicle emission factors. For the

present study, traffic volumes were obtained from References 4 and 5.

Traffic volumes for the daily peak flow for the year 1983 were extrapolated

from these data. Traffic in all cases was assumed to be composed of automo-

biles and heavy duty diesel trucks. Percent truck composition was obtained

from Reference 5 and additional truck traffic associated with rail abandonment

schemes were added. Vehicle emission factors for the years 1981 and 1985 were

taken directly from the Federal Highway Administration's Mobile Source Emission

Factor Tables (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.1, 1978). This document pro-

vides emission factors up to and including the year 1999. However, because

the fleet of cars and heavy duty diesel trucks show no additonal reduction in

CO emissions for the years 1994-1999, the emission factors for these vehicle

types for those years was utilized for the year 2004.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 36

A sensitive receptor was chosen for each probable route which would

receive additional truck traffic (the Gertrude A. Barber Center on East Avenue

and the Hamot Medical Center on State Street). These receptors were located

on the USGS 7.5' @rie North, Pennsylvania Topographic Quadrangle (Photo-

revised, 1975) and all measurements related to roadway geometry taken from the

map.

Noise level determinations were made utilizing the FHWA's Highway Traffic

Noise Prediction Model (RHWA-RD-77-108, 1978) for hand-held calculators.

Again, traffic volumes were obtained from the above sources and roadway

geometry relative to the sensitive receptors obtained from gross measurements

on the U.S.G.S. topographic map. As summarized in Tables 6A, 6B and 7,

Schemes IB, IC, 11 and 11 show no or negligible air and noise effects.

Scheme IA (total abandonment of the rail line) is the only scheme with non-

negligible effects.

For the year 2004 projection, CO concentrations decrease for all cases even

with the addition of truck traffic, chiefly due to long term decreases in auto-

emission rates built into the national automobile fleet. Total CO concentrations

are well within HUD and FHWA standards. Increases in noise level at Hamot

Hospital are negligible. The projected 3.14 dbA increase at the Dr. Gertrude

A. Barber Center for Scheme IA represents small increase in noise level at that

location.

Table 7 presents the results of air and noisei effects if rail abandonment

schemes were to take place over the short term (1985) and compares these to

the effects in the long term (2004). At both receptor sites CO concentrations

decline with time and the levels are well within standards. Noise levels at both

receptor sites are within standard.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 37

In summary, projected air and noise effects of rail abandonment are

negligible except for Scheme IA--abandonment of the entire Bayfront line. This

could increase noise levels at the Dr. Gertrude A. Barber Center by 3.14 dbA.

The resultant level of 44.63 dbA is significantly less than the 67 dbA highway

noise design standard for hospitals.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 38

Table 5

ADDITIONAL TRUCK MOVEMENTS
DUE TO VARIOUS RAIL ABANDONMENT SCHEMES

Added Trucks Per Day
Industry Affected by Rail Abandonment Scheme
(Ref. Table 4) 1A IB IC Ii. III

Erie-Western Pa. Port Authority 20 0 0 0 0

Koppers 250 0 0 0 0

Perry Shipbuilding 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0

GAF 45 45 0 0 0

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 39

Table 6A

ESTIMATED AIR-QUALITY AND NOISE LEVELS (1985)
AT TWO RECEPTOR SITES

Added CO Total Added Exterior Total Exterior
Concentrations Concentrations Noise Leq Noise Leq
-(ppm) (ppm) - Level (dbA) Level (dbA)
Scheme Barber Hamot Barber Hamot Barber Hamot Barber Hamot

IA -0.10 -0.78 2.17 3.07 2.23 0.33 43.72 49.86

IB -0.11 -0.78 2.16 3.07 0.35 0.33 41.84 49.86

IC -0*11 -0,71 2,16 3,17 0,35 0*11 41*14 49*64

11 -0.11 -0.78 2.16 3.07 0.35 0.11 41.84 49.64

111 -0.11 -0.78 2.16 3.07 0.35 0.11 41.84 49.64

Table 6B

ESTIMATED AIR QUALITY AND NOISE LEVELS (2004)
AT TWO RECEPTOR SITES

Added CO Total Added Exterior Total Exterior
Concentrations Concentrations Noise Leq Noise Leq
(ppm) - (ppm) Level (dbA) Level (dbA)
Scheme Barber HaMot Barber Hamot Barber Ramot Barber Hamot

IA -0*11 -1,26 1,12 2.59 3.14 0.98 44.63 50.51

IB -0.16 -1.26 2.11 2.59 1.68 0.98 43.17 50.51

IC -o.16 -1.26 2.11 2.59 1.68 0.64 43.17 50.17

II -o.16 -1.26 2.11 2.59 1.68 0.64 43.17 50.17

111 -0.16 -1.26 2.11 2.59 1.68 0.64 43.17 50.17

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 40

Table 7

COMPARISON OF AIR QUALITY AND NOISE LEVELS

Barber Center (Scheme IA) PPMCO Leg Total (dbA)

1981 2.27 41.49

1985 w/o abandonment 2.16 41.84

1985 w/abandonment 2.17 43.72

2004 Wo abandonment 2.11 43.17

2004 w/abandonment 2.12 44.63

Hamot Medical Center (Schemes IA or IB)

1981 3.85 49.53

1985 w/o abandonment 3.07 49.64

1985 w/abandonment 3.07 49.86

2004 w/o abandonment 2.59 50.17

2004 w/abandonment 2.59 50,51

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
41

7. FUTURE BAYFRONT RAIL SERVICE

7.1 Market for Rail Service

The present Conrad service to Bayfront industries carries over 300,000

tons per year, with up to 500,000 tons expected in near future years. The

development of new industries on the Bayfront could increase this volume in the

future. The marketing of new industry to the Bayfront now under way will be

enhanced by the availability of rail and further justifies continuation of rail

service to the Bayfront.

7.2 Management and Financial Options

A range of possible methods of operation of the Lake Front Yard and

remaining track to the east of GAF were considered in this study, including

public ownership with public or private operation, independent owner-operator,

continued ownership and operation by Conrail, and continued ownership by
Conr*a'il with multi-private operations.

The Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority was the only public agency

that showed an interest in the purchase and operation of the Bayfront track

and Lake Front yard. This interest was stimulated with the prospects of mak-

ing Erie a major coal port and in using the Erie to Warren rail line to link to

the West Virginia coal field by way of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers.

The ownership and operation of the Bayfront tracks to the Erie Port and use of

Lake Yard would have been an important part of that transportation link as it

effected the cost-competitiveness of the port. Also, the Port Authority was

interested in the Bayfront tracks for rail access to existing and potential

Bayfront industries between State Street and the Koppers plant.

With the abandonment of the rail line from Warren to Erie and the

determination that coal would not be shipped in large quantities through the

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 42

Port by rail (Ref. 2), revenues from those sources to support a publicly owned

Yard facility will not be available. In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation has indicated that it has no interest in investing public money in

purchasing the Erie-Warren line. The Department's position was stated in a

letter dated April 14, 1982, from William C. Underwood, Director, Bureau of

Public Transit and Goods Movement Systems, to Pennsylvania Representative

Bernard J. Dembrowski (Appendix E),

The main concern for ownership and operation of remaining trackage (Lake

Yard and track to the east of GAF) is now focused on how to maintain rail ser-

vice to present industries (chiefly GAF, Koppers and the Port).and to proposed

industrial development along the Bayfront. To investigate the future possi-

bilities for private ownership and operation of these tracks, extended discus-.

sions have been held with the major Bayfront rail users (GAF and.Koppers) and

Conrail staff.

The GAF plant is a major rail user. Presently, the use of the Conrail

track west of the GAF plant does not justify retaining that portion of the track

in view of the cost and service advantages of the Bayfront Road alignment

alternative that assumes that this portion is not retained (Ref. 4). GAF has

expressed the need for continued rail service to its plant in the future. Alter-

natives to rail service such as the use of other modes or plant relocation are

being reviewed by GAF. The feasibility of such options will require further

definition in the future as the costs to GAF are weighed against cost advan-

tages to Bayfront Road highway construction. GAF, however, was not willing

to consider ownership and/or operation of the Bayfront track.

With over 80-85 percent of all rail tonnage in the Bayfront being delivered

to and from the Koppers coke plant, the future ownership and operation of rail

service in the Bayfront will be largely determined by the continued operation of

G.Al CONSULTANTS, INC. 43

the Koppers plant. Numerous meetings and conversations with Koppers Co.

management were held to ascertain their views on the future of the Erie plant.

Their position was that the Erie plant is important to Kopper's operation.

Koppers has spent considerable money in meeting environmental regulations and

anticipates that there could be additional Koppers facilities in Erie. It is their

reported intent to w eather the economic recession and remain with a viable

facility in Erie. Koppers is adamantly opposed to public, private, or private

Terminal Rail takeover of the Lake Yard facility based on their past experience

in other areas.

The final option investigated was ownership by Conrail with multi-private

operations. The Bayfront track and Lake Yard is presently being operated this

way to a reasonable extent. For example, Norfolk and Southern (formerly N&W)

currently services the Kopper's plant. Switching and maintenance is being

handled by Conrail, however. The complexity of the Lake Yard operation and

constrained operating conditions makes the use of more than one switching and

maintenance operator impractical.

On the positive side, Conrail has indicated its intention to continue to

operate and maintain the Lake Yard to service Koppers and other users.

Conrail has examined the Lake Yard facility and track to GAF and has ex-

pressed no reason to consider abandonment.

Of the options investigated for the Bayfront tracks and the Lake Yard,

the most feasible, cost-effective option is to maintain a viable Koppers facility

with rail service owned and operated by Conrail.

Continuation of Rail Usage in the Bayfront Area

This study further examined potential ways that the public could enhance

continued rail usage to the Bayfront-Port area. This examination indicated that

there was a detrimental impact on future rail service to the Bayfront caused by

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 44

a proposed at-grade crossing of rail to the Koppers plant and the proposed

Bayfront roadway. To maintain a viable rail service in the Bayfront necessi-

tates understanding and examining ways to reduce conflicts with the rail

services which might threaten the financial health of the rail operation to the

Koppers plant, and which in turn could threaten rail service in the Bayfront

area. A detailed examination of rail service to Koppers is presented in Appen-

dix D.

Conrail and Koppers concur in recognizing the need to maintain a high

level of service for movements into and out of the Koppers plant. These com-

panies have expressed concern over the potential conflicts with the proposed

Bayfront Roadway and the need for these to be resolved so as not to affect the

economic viability of rail service to the Koppers plant, and hence of rail service

to the Bayfront area. This information has become a basis for the City's policy

positions in negotiations with PaDOT, their engineers, Koppers and Conrail so

as to balance a viable future industrial rail service with other considerations.

In view of present and future needs for rail service to Bayfront

industries, continuation of the Conrail service to the Bayfront and its Lake

Yard operations is important. In this regard Conrail has maintained the line

and yard in a condition satisfactory for present operation (Appendix B).

Conrail conducts routine inspection of the track with maintenance performed as

needed (about $100,000 per year). Within two to five years Conrail anticipates

re-ballasting the tracks and replacing some ties as necessary. Based on obser-

vations of the current conditions of the track and this level of inspection and

maintenance the track should be capable of accommodating present service
levels in the' future.

GAi CONSULTANTS, INC. 45

Summary

Without the Koppers operation or its equivalent, the continuation of rail

service to the Bayfront could be in jeopardy. However, since Koppers has

indicated that it intends to keep the Erie plant in operation well into the fu-

ture, rail service as presently provided will continue as long as the service and

costs remain at levels comparable to or better than the. present. For this

reason and because there is no indication of major future rail movements of coal

through the Port of Erie, the prospect for public ownership and operation of

Bayfront rail service is diminished. The need for public funding of property

purchase, administration and operation of a terminal or short-line railroad is not

indicated, subject to the conditions discussed above.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC, 46

8. CONCLUSIONS

1. The section of Conrail track between 12th Street and the GAF plant could

be taken out of service with small effect on current rail users as compared

with major cost and environmental advantages to the alignment of the

Bayfront-Port Access Road, and the continued cost of maintaining the

track.

2. The GAF plant requires rail service presently and the plant's operation

will require continued and possibly higher use in the future. If the rail

trackage to the present GAF location is eliminated for the purpose of cost

reduction of the Bayfront-Port Access Road, this cost should be compared

to costs of other options such as costs for relocation or costs to switch to

truck and water modes.

Elimination of the trackage to GAF would permit location of the

Bayfront-Port Access Road to the north of the Lake Yard with the poten-

tial cost savings of eliminating a highway structure crossing the railroad

near Parade Street.

3. The Conrail Lake Yard is needed by the Koppers Company for their

present and long-range future operations. This service requires main-

taining the present capacity - trackage for 150 cars (50 feet long) and a

by-pass track.

4. Access to the Port and Bayfront Industrial properties f rom the

Bayfront-Port Access Road should be provided with minimal conflict

between rail operations and highway traffic movement.

5. Upon completion of 1-79 and the Bayfront-Port Access Road, truck traffic

to present Port and Bayfront properties and to planned industrial sites

from the west and south can use the Bayfront Road. Truck traffic from

the east and north can also use 1-79 and the Bayfront Road until an

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 4.7

improved corridor is provided from the Bayfront Road to 1-90 eastward

(using, for example, Routes 5, 531 or 430).

6. Partial rail line abandonment in the Bayfront area would not result in

significant air or noise effects. Total abandonment of the line could result

in higher noise levels on East Avenue, but within HUD or FHWA

standards.

7. Because of the potential delays to Bayfront Road traffic from an at-grade

rail crossing to Koppers in the vicinity of Wayne Street, a grade-separated

rail crossing would. be advantageous to highway users, Koppers and Con-

rail.

8. Truck and other traffic to and from Koppers Company using the

Bayfront-Port Access Road could be accommodated by a simple connection

at East Avenue near the proposed highway bridge over East Avenue.

Truck traffic could be limited to the Port Access Road, if desirable, to

reduce truck volumes at the East Avenue intersection.

9. Koppers Company is the predominant user of rail service in the Bayfront

area and has the need for continued heavy rail service. Koppers intends

to continue the Bayfront plant operation in the future with possible addi-

tional facilities. Extensive increase in the amount of coal through the Port

of Erie in excess of recent volumes is not anticipated, and the need for a

separate publicly owned terminal railroad for the purpose of moving coal is

not indicated.

10. To support the City's objective for continuation of rail service to the

Bayfront and Port, the policy of the City should be to encourage the

continued operation of the Koppers plant and the continued or improved

level of rail service to the Koppers plant.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 48

REFERENCES

1. Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglass, Inc., Port of Erie Waterfront
Development Plan, Report prepared for Port Commission, City of Erie,
Pennsylvania, April 1968.

2. Hammer, Siler, George Associates, Port and Bayfront Development Poten-
tials, Erie, Pennsylvania, Report prepared for the Erie-Western
Pennsylvania Port Authority, March 1982.

3. Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority, 1981-1982 Annual Report.

4. City of Erie, Bayfront-Port Access Road Design Location Study and Pre-
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 1983.

5. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Feasibility Study for L.R. 1003
Bayfront Highway, City of Erie, Pennsylvania.

I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I

(7o)

REPORT FOR:

SURVEY OF RAIL USERS
AND
IMPACT ON THE ECON014Y

Submitted To:

GAI Consultants, Inc.
Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146

Submitted By:

Keystone University Research Corporation
434 West 8th Street
Erie, Pennsylvania 16502

September 1982

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to evaluate the economic impact

of track retirement or abandonment of the rail system now serving

the Erie Bayfront-Port area.

In order to have a comprehensive evaluation of the economic

impact, we should first review the contribution of transportation

in general to business operations. It is virtually inconceivable

in today's economy for a firm to function without the aid of trans-

portation. Transportation is the basic link among a firm's plants,

warehouses and raw material sources. Transportation enables the firm

to physically move goods to the place desired and at the time desired.

Most firms are geographically divorced from their raw material

sources and/or their market areas. Therefore, transportation is

necessary to bridge the gap between production and consumption.

There are various modes of transportation from which a firm can

choose a particular mode and a particular carrier in the mode.

The choice of transportation mode directly affects all other elements

of the business operation, e.g., packaging, production, planning,

warehousing, facility location, information processing, inventory

control, ect. Consequently, transportation methods must be selected

to provide for efficient operation of the entire business system.

2.0 DETERMINANTS OF CARRIER SELECTION

The carrier selection decision is a specialized purchasing

process whereby a firm purchases the services of a carrier to provide

the necessary and vital link ainong business units. The carrier

selection decision is a twofold decision. First, a mode of transport

(rail, motor, air, water, pipeline) is selected and second, a

particular carrier(s) from within this mode must be chosen. The

selection of mode usually involves the evaluation of the rates and

service levels via alternative modes. For example, in a decision

regarding use of air or rail carriers, consideration would be given

to advantages of shorter transit time by air and the low rates by

rail. Then, in the selection of a specific carrier from a chosen

mode, carrier service performance becomes the more important determi-

nant. The relevant service performance determinants are: transit

time, reliability, capability, accessibility and security.

2.1 Transportation Cost

Transportation cost was the predominant carrier selection

determinant in early carrier selection works. The carrier selection

decision was basically choosing the carrier having the lowest

transportation costs. Transportation cost areas are: rates, mimimum

weights, loading and unloading facilities, packaging and blocking,

damage-in-transit, and special services available from a carrier.

However, recently the importance of transportation costs declined

somewhat. Attention is now focused upon the cost trade-offs existing

2-1

between the service provided by a carrier and the transportation

costs.

2.2 Transit Time and Reliability

TrAnsit time is the total time that elapses from the time the

consignor makes the goods available for dispatch until the carrier

delivers same to the consignee. This includes the time required for

pick-up and delivery, for terminal handling and for movement between

origin and destination terminals. Reliability refers to the con-

sistency of the transit time provided by a carrier, i,e., reliability

is a measure of variation in.the transit time provided by carriers.

Transit time and reliability affect the costs of inventory and

stockouts (lost sales or foregone productivity). Lower transit

time results in lower inventories, while less dependability causes

higher inventory levels or costs of stockouts. A business can gain
a competitive advantage in the marketplace by utilizing a carrier

that provides dependable service.

2.3 Capability and Accessibility

Capability and accessibility determine whether a particular

carrier can physically perform the transport service desired. Capa-

bility refers to the ability of a carrier to provide the equipment

and facilities required for the movement of a particular commodity.

Accessibility considers the ability of the carrier to provide

service, i.e., the availability of carrier routes and terminals in

2-2

the proximity of the shipping locations. Accessibility refers

to the ability of the carrier to physically approach (have access

to) the business units.

2.4 Security

Security is concerned with the arrival of the goods in the

same location as they were in when tendered to the carrier. The

unsafe service would result in opportunity costs of foregone profits

or productivity as a consequence of the goods arriving in a damaged

condition and not available for sale or use. To guard against

these.opportunity costs, a firm will increase inventory levels with

resulting increased inventory costs.

In this study, major attention will be placed on two transportation

modes, railroad and motor carriers (trucking) and comparison of those

two modes.

2-3

1.0 SURVEY OF THE BUSINESSES

In order to evaluate the economic impact of the railroad

abandonment now serving the Erie Bayfront-Port area, it is necessary

to find out the present business practices in their selection of

transportation carriers, especially railroad vs. other alternatives,

mainly trucking.

Since there are only a handful of business firms using the

service of the railroad system under this study, we decided to conduct

a personal interview survey. The other survey methods, such as mailed

questionnaire or telephone interview, would probably result in a

level of non-response.

A total of twelve firms were initially contacted to set up an

interview. Those firms are listed in Table 1. Interviews could not

be arranged at all firms, thus, the final list includes only eight

firms. Then, item analyses were applied to draw the general findings

from the interview results. Any other statistical techniques could

not be applied in this study because the size of the sample was too

small and the nature of the data did not lend itself to statistical

analysis.

The findings of the survey in light of the four determinants of

carrier selection are as follows:

3.1 Transportation Costs

As shown in Table 2, the results of the survey regarding trans-

portation costs are difficult to explain and inconclusive. There is

3-1

am M_ @ Ow M an so am 4= so

Table 1

BUSINESSES CONTACTED

Name of Business Address Nature of Business Interviewer

Erie-Western Pennsylvania Room 507 Government Iutcovich
Port Authority Municipal Building Port Authority and Min

Codan Corporation (a) Foot of Wayne Street Freight Contracting Min

Koppers Inc. Foot of East Avenue Foundry Coke Iutcovich
Coke Ovens

Perry Shipbuilding Corp. Foot of Cranberry St. Lake Freighter Repair Min

Hammermill Paper Company. East Lake Road Fine Paper Iutcovich
Manufacturing

Min
Erie Marine Inc. Foot of Holland St. Heavy Construction

General Electric East Lake Road Locomotive Production Iutcovich
Motorized Wheel

GAY (b) Foot of Sassafras St. Building Material/ Iutcovich
Roofing

United Refinery (c) Foot of Cranberry St. oil Refining

Erie Sand & Gravel (c) Foot of Sassafras St. Sand & Gravel

Pennelec (d) Electricity

Frontier Lumber (e) 762 East 5th Street Lumber

Notes:
a) Codan Corporation is the contractor for the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority.
b) Telephone Interview with Manager of Distribution in Wayne, New Jersey.
c) Initial telephone contact made. No further interview was conducted because the firm did not
envision any need for rail service and it did not wish to be interviewed.
d) Telephone conversation witth Materials Manager in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
e) Interview was scheduled but was not to be conducted because of the business owner's
#-imp scheAvile.

a large degree of variation in rates according to different types

of cargo. Most of the firms were not able to give transportation

cost breakdowns. At least one firm would not provide the data

because they claimed it to be confidential. Overall, the indication

from the survey was that the transportation cost was not the

primary determinant in the selection of a specific carrier. This

confirms the theoretical description presented in the previous

section.

3.2 Transportation Services

There was a concensus within the firms surveyed that transportation

services are the determining factors in the selection of transportation

methods. The most common reason cited by each firm for the use of

railroad service was that each firm requires some type of bulky and

heavy cargos in its operation. In other words, capability and accessi-

bility are more important factors in determining the use of railroad

service over trucking, accompanied by transit time, reliability,

and security of transportation. As indicated in Table 2 and Table 3,

all the firms interviewed are using or had used the service of the

Bayfront rail system. They further emphasized that the continuation

of railroad service is essential for their businesses. One firm even

went as far as to say that the life of its busines s depends on the

existence of railroad service. Most of the firms surveyed also

indicated that they have been satisfied with the services they

received from the railroad. only two firms expressed some
3-3

Table 2

CARGO TYPES AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS

Transportation Tonnage
Name of Business Types of Cargo Costs of Cargo

Erie-Western Pa. By Truck:
Port Authority and coal $ 2.50/net ton
Codan Corporation special ores 2.10/metric ton
pig iron 1.70/metric ton 900,000
steel coils .10/100 lbs. approx.
steel slaps .10/100 lbs. 1,600,000/year
steel scrap .40/metric ton
lumber .40/100 lbs.
machinery .12/100 lbs.
miscellaneous 1.50/metric ton
By Rail:
coal $ 4.50/metric ton
.steel slaps 2.50/metric ton
machinery 11.00/metric ton
transformers 11.00/metric ton
locomotives 11.00/metric ton
steam boilers 11.00/metric ton
logs @50/100 lbs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Koppers, Inc. By Truck:
coke average 560 tons
maintenance $12.00/ton coke/day
supplies
chemicals
By Rail:
coal average 800 tons
chemicals $20.00/ton coal/day

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perry Shipbuilding By Truck:
Corporation machinery parts
paints total
general'cargo $20,000/year 100-200
steel tons/year
By Rail:
bulky and $14,000/year
heavy in 1981
machinery

3-4

Table 2 (continued)

Transportation Tonnage
Name of Business Types of Cargo Costs of Cargo

Hammermill Paper Co. By Truck: 460 tons
paper per day
supplies
chemicals $40 million
packaging per year
wood chips
coal
By Rail:
wood pulp
chemicals $16 million
wood chips per year
paper (total $56 million/year)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erie Marine, Inc. By Truck* $26,000/year 100 tons
coal per year
repair parts
steel products
misc. supplies
By Rail:
none since 1974

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Electric By Truck: total approx. 370 finished
coal $10 million/year locomotives
steel products per year
air compressors
elec. motor parts 40%-80-120 tons
engine blocks 60%-130-160 tons
pistons
diesel parts
misc.
By Rail: $500,000/year 28,000 tons
steel products per year
finished locomotive
By Ship:
finished locomotives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

GAF By Truck and-Rail: no data available 53,000 tons
asphalt (confidential) asphalt/year
granules
felt
roofing shingles (other data
finished products are confi-
dential)

3-5

Table 3

METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION

Name of Current Method Level of Satisfaction Future Plan Proportion of
Business of Transportation with current Transportation to use Rail Transportaion by Rail

Erie-Western Pa. Truck: all common Satisfied Yes (absolute 20-30%
Port Authority carriers necessity for
Rail: Conrail Somewhat less than bulky and heavy
satisfactory cargo)
Ship: Satisfied
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Koppers, Inc. Truck: Jack Gray Satisfied
Buffalo Fuel Yes (essential 100% of raw
Seaway to bring coal materials.
Rail: Conrail Satisfied by train) 50% of out
bound products
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ !-----------------------

Perry Shipbuilding Truck: all common Satisfied Yes (essential 25%
Corporation carriers for bulk & heavy
cargo)
*Plan to expand
into rail car
repair business
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hammermill Paper Truck: all common Satisfied Yes 27-30%
Company carriers
Rail: Conrail Satisfied
some N&W

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erie Marine, Inc. Truck: all common Satisfied Yes (essential 80% with main
carriers for main operation) operation
Rail: Conrail
(no Use since 1974)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAN MM" Ms" w M w w am

Table 3 (continued)

Name of Current Method Level of Satisfaction Future Plan Proportion of
Business of Transportation with current Transportation to use Rail Trans@ortation by Rail

General Electric Truck: all common No satisfied Yes (no 20% inbound
carriers alternative
Rail: Conrail Satisfied for locomotive) 80% outbound
N&W
Bessemer-Lake Erie

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GAF Truck: all common Satisfied Yes 5% outbound
carriers 1) essential for
Rail: Conrail Not at all satisfied bulky & heavy 60% inbound
loads
2) too many
trucks already
for the streets
in the City of Erie
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dissatisfaction and the main reason was the bureaucratic aspects

of the railroad company stemming from its monopoly in this area.

All the firms indicated that they plan to use the railroad service

in the future for the same reasons, namely, railroad service is

essential for the transportation of bulky and heavy loads.

3.3 Economic Impacts of Rail Abandonment

It was the consistent opinion of the firms surveyed that the

abandonment of the rail system serving Erie Bayfront area would have

some negative effects on the local economy, on both employment and

revenue. All the firms indicated that the effect of rail abandonment

on current level of employment and revenue may not be that great

because the current level of business is already very low. But once

the general economy starts to recover, then the negative effect of

rail abandonment would become very significant.

There would be some differences in the economic effect of rail

abandonment for different alternative abandonment options because

of business firms' locations.

3.3.1 option I (Abandonment from 16th Street to West of GAIF)

It would not affect any on the firms' current business operations.

It would have an impact though on the future expansion plan of Perry

Shipbuilding into rail car repair business.

3.3.2 option 2 (Ab andorment from 16th Street to East of State Street)

It would affect the current business of GAF and the expansion of

Perry Shipbuilding.
3-8

3.3.3 Option 3 (Abandonment from 16th Street to East of Erie Marine)

It would have negative impact on business of all firms except

Hammermill Paper Company which uses the mainline rail service only.

3.3.4 Option 4 (Abandonment from 16th Street to Buffalo Road)

Same as Option 3.

3.4 Effects of Proposed Bayfront Access Road

Reaction to the proposed construction of the Bayfront Access

Road was mixed. only two firms indicated that the proposed Access

Road would bring some favorable effect tothe'Erie economy because

of the following reasons:

1) Turnaround time of transportation would be reduced,

2) Trucking rate of transportation might be reduced

because of shorter transportation time and better

road condition,

3) Erie Port would become more competitive against

neighboring ports.

However, the other firms were somewhat skeptical about the econimic

impact of the proposed Bayfront Access Road ontheir business.

Analysis of the impact of the rail abandonment on income and

state revenues, potential savings possible under alternative actions,

and comparison of cost incurred by governmental agencies were not able

to be conducted because of lack of relevant data. As soon as the

requested data through GAI are provided to us, we will submit a

supplementary report on those subjects.

3-9

4.0 FINDINGS

Through a careful examination of the available data, the

following highlights of the findings can be pointed out:

1) All the firms surveyed either have been using thq

railroad service or have used it in the past.

2 ) All the firms surveyed are planning to use the

railroad service in the future,

3) All the firms contend that the continuation of

railroad service is essential for bulky and heavy

loads.

4) Survey results indicate that the transportation cost

is not a major determinant in the selection of

particular carriers. Firms consider the quality of

transportation service in terms of transportation

time, reliability, accessibility and transportation

safety to be more important factors in the carrier

selection process.

5) Survey results indicate that continuation of the

railroad service in the Erie Bayfront area up to

west of GAF is desirable.

4-1

I . @ I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. B-1

APPENDIX B - CONRAIL TRACK AND PROPERTY

Rail facilities in the Bayfront Area between 12th Street and United Oil

were removed during the period of this study. Remaining rail facilities west of

GAIT are being used as a tail track to service GAF. The track east of GAF,

including the Lake Front Yard, is in a "neutral" condition. This means that

with routine inspection and maintenance, the trackage is operational.

The "neutral" trackage requires monthly inspection of switches and track.

This requires four to five working days per month in the Yard/Bayfront area.

Identified problems would be expected to be fixed in two to three days with

minimal effect on operations.

Repair of the problems identified by the inspection requires a four-man

gang, normally five days per month. Inspection and repair (24 man-days per

month at $140 per man-day; i.e., $90 per man-day plus fringes) comes to an

estimated $3,500 per month for track work. In addition, flashers for Fifth and

Wayne require checking weekly plus an additional monthly checking. This

requires a total of five man-days per month for inspection. Allowing for

repairs, total flashers costs would be an estimated $1800 per month. Total

maintenance of Yard in a "neutral" condition with flashers is $5,300 per month.

Present life expectancy of the existing tracks in a "neutral" condition as

described above is two to five years.

Some time in the next two to five years, substantial work will be required

to install new ties and surfacing of track (raising track to eliminate dips).

Surfacing of tracks requires picking up track to the proper level one rail at a

time, replacing each tie, and machine vibrating ballast. Tie replacement and

surfacing of track will cost $500,000 for the Lake Front Yard.

Operations in the yard depend upon usage. Because of the two percent

grade and heavy loads, two locomotives are used at all times for the switching

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. B-2

operations. Costs for yard operations are included in the rates charged by

Conrail and N&W for delivery.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. B-3

Table B-1

CONRAIL BAYFRONT PROPERTY
(City Records)

Parcel-by Street Area

Cranberry-Raspberry: 4th-3rd 95,429 SF
3rd-2nd 52,571
Raspberry- Cascade: 3rd-2nd 28,571
2nd-Front 59,429
Cascade-Plum: N of Front 24,000

North of Front:

Plum-Liberty 46,286
Liberty-Poplar 68,571
Poplar-Cherry 69,143
Cherry-Walnut 27,429
Walnut-Chestnut 64,571
Chestnut-Myrtle 22,857
Myrtle- Sassafras 33,143
Sassafras-Peach -34,286

Subtotal 626,286
12th Street to 3rd Street 370,800
Total 997,086 SF
Approximately 22.9 Acres

Table B-2

CONRAIL BAYFRONT PROPERTY
(Conrail Records)

Parcel by Street Area

12th St. to 3rd St. 370,800
3rd St. to Front St. 122,000
Front St. and Spurs 1,092,000
Totals 1,584,800
Approximately 36.3 Acres

--P-L'K Ct@ECK 31-k8UZq'T70N 7kNiD fA-L&-f
RectqANSCL/ Ziq-770AJ ST@@)iy

LA f,@ C ctry 6 0 pz o U& 0 ) t-f- I c U, / PA

J]I ff

I WWI I
olp

COWPAIL PPOPFRTY
IM

'3TATE 6TPEG'T wE,-o,r To i2rm !6TPEET
(vAc3r=r;l ON CONRAWL RECORDS)

ROURE bl

I . . 16,4,ib

I
I
I . .
.1
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. C-1

APPENDIX C - ALTERNATIVE TRUCK ROUTES TO BAYFRONT INDUSTRIES

An evaluation of alternative routes and travel times for non-local truck

traffic to Bayfront industries was made to identify likely paths of added truck

trips if portions of the rail line were abandoned, and to provide additional

information on the possible use of local streets in Erie if trucks were to access
the Bayfront Road via streets such as Parade Street, Holland Street or State

Street.

Possible routes to the Bayfront from 1-90 or 1-79 were identified and travel

times (adjusted for truck speeds) were measured. in the field on specific links.

Truck travel times on the future Bayfront Road were estimated. Comparisons

among four routes were made to identify those that non-local trucks would be

likely to use. The routes studied are shown in Figures C-I through C-4.

Table C-1 p resents measured and estimated truck travel times.

Results indicated that trucks traveling from the east on 1-90 will arrive at

the proposed Bayfront Industrial Park sooner by remaining on 1-90 to 1-79 and

using the Bayfront Road to the Industrial Park (est. 25 minutes) than by

getting off 1-79 at T.R. 8 and using Parade Street and the Parade Street Ramp

to the Bayfront Road (est. 29 min.).

If the geometrical restrictions on T.R. 430 and T.R. 531 are removed in

some future improvement program, these routes would be quicker than other

alternatives (est. 23 min.). The 1-90 and 1-79 alternative which is only 2

minutes longer may still be attractive to truckers from 1-90 east who want to

avoid local streets.

Also, truck traffic destined to the Bayfront and some central Erie

destinations from T.R. 19 and 1-79 from the south and 1-90 from the west would

be attracted to the Bayfront Road because of obvious travel time advantages

compared to local streets.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. C-2

The alternative location plans for the Bayfront Road show a single access

point at the foot of Holland Street to the Bayfront industrial area between State

Street and the Port. All truck and auto movements to and fromthe Bayfront

industrial area by the Bayfront Road or by Holland Street would use this single

access point. All of these movements will have to cross the Conrail Lake Yard

tail track that is used to reverse direction of engines, remove cars from the

west end of the yard and service GAF. At least once each day, engines (2)
pull cars into the yard and exit by' crossing Holland Street. This movement

takes 5 minutes each way for a total 10 minute delay.

Two to four times each week engines pass to the west side of Holland

Street, cross back to the east to pick up cars, and remove those cars across

Holland Street to the west (on the tail track) and to the east on the passing

track. This movement takes about 40 minutes.

These train movements could cause significant delay to truck and auto

trips to and from the Bayfront industrial area at Holland Street and the

industrial service road. Also, vehicles making turns into the industrial area

from the Bayfront Road would queue onto the Bayfront Road during train

movements.

Conrail has expressed concern that objections to such delays by the public

or fire officials could result in actions that would constrain their operations and

increase operating cost. Possible measures for reducing delay include:

a. Relocation of the Lake Yard 1000 feet to the east, which would

eliminate all train crossings of the industrial road access except

movements to GAF.

b. Use of a flagman rather than gates to control traffic.

C. Upgrading of the track to increase train speed and facilitate quicker

crossings of the industrial area access point.

m
00m)-m-no,
"L91. 'Rd -QIPAGw-n
GV-P1-Z8 14rmnQSWd -'PW Awes ozg z
83SWIN E)Nimvua VINVAIISNN3d '3183 30 A113
64plemadS 1011,19111t.10PAU3 Z
:3-Pf::)S Sjouunid Ing0oloso lueoulouB
31VC3 Aams 11V8 3183 NO
1 31VN83ilV 31no8 mui
I(DIHO Nma
1-0 3MIA

r
c
0

-)q, 40
CA m
x
z 71
N ca
z mcv-E r,
0
SS '0161-40

C-0
Ln

m
1c, r,: V,
R D. c
m
try n:aj m
0 rr,
A v.
0
Z
z
Y4.
>

c
@ I I V 2: m
PEq CAI >
t:d m
0 cc) a)
.66

0
O\ T
x

L) 0 0-6 0

4 CD

a,
<
r T @y <
0 iF rn

S rn m

C) \A
A@LE
CL

0
CL
ki
PO\ 0
0 IM
m I 'T VIDAN
06, -fo , r lop
TATE -FLO, 00
7S RO.M
,9 :@ z
SAMPSO
>
C2 SCKUNDWEIN
z fm KUHL
0
li\- >
DI KUHL R
-R it I
MARK E-,
--f") WE IZSLE
ETTER D@. X 0
RD. 11 2
@:S 011 Z
C,
Ot 0
rn
In z F
ARTON X c) BLILEY r
Ro
Ro RD pECK RD. C 0
> .6 1 1 - - Cc) m
n r
o m . , . :7 *
% r
C)T %VN
AL V
7 z
c /O-IE-S 1@@a
R, YJ -
I p
1z -L NN39 IX VA
Z
A
0 TO
o
I. @Fo-b

1
I" PLU RD. -4
b; 2 no R
a n- i ir, AN
UGAN
D. m

ca
A3H 0009-m-Z&V :0
gV-01-N WkGL,ed '911!QOJUOn C
'7 a3ewnN VNIMVEIG VINVAIISNN3d '3183 JO AiIO 'Ll5JnqSUld - *pu Augge OLS z
SpIlefoods tvsu9wuojiAu3
&J&uu8id - 049001090 - 6JGOU!BU3

'ONI 'SlNvpnSNO3
31VC3 'OdcIV
AGnIS IIV8 3183
-Z hMhIV 31nO8 ME
GXHO
Nm
Z-3 38ngij

00
%D;P
go d'D

z N CL,
0 7'e 41.
SS
4,d
lp 13

01
-S.
R
ao

"a -n c
p

o
0 a)

0
0
rl)
0

z
0 A IPA
u

d
0

<
<
M- A
r C/)
r
rrl m
0, C, .0
0
01
0 <
t5
70
m
m 0 7,7 AN P\
I = r
.0 >
TE @d 0111
m
SAMPSOfl'* RD. 00
/ f 0
SCR@@We 2
z RD 0 -ROJ KUHL RE).
0 :zLm
t C7
MARK= B, > E-4
3cm M
'@@K@IBL,E z 0:1
ETTE RD. -lz m ILLIq4f
0
0. .10 0 0
@;S 01) >
i< is C,
Ill; o
D T H z
RD' -Y DEWIF 0-
.0 IAV
7 D. lz r I-
ARTONX BLILE), R pECK R 0. C, 7 z
n 2222rrrr -o-a
0
>
.0 ED L@%
c." JONE f P!
A
zmz x
L.3NN39 \0 ill\
c

RO.
p =r S
Omtj Sr) R 10).
IdS 0,\o
PLUM
DOUGAN
i RD- 'i r@OGAN R D.. 72

, I
A3H 001,9-m-ZLI, :0
LV-Ot I -Z 9 "@SL :d '011!mojuoyy a
17 E13OWnN ONIMVEIC3 VINVAIASNN3d '3183 AD AM nqsuld 'Pu 141098 OLS Z
%plopedS leluowuoj:,AU3
- - WOS 'U3
.3 BJGuuBid - 14S!601000 - SJOSU.
'ONI 'SlNvnnSNO K.
*adciv 0 ::.": .11
AGAIS 11V8 3183
E31VN8311V 31noH Nondi
C3NHO NMO ILI'
c-3 38ngij th
Ll
1@j

cl-
STERJ'E\'@' r,q

'P
z
>

0
N m
2
PC )'7'
7'
o";-
(D
\.A '0
NQ

m Ln

RD.
rn
v
0
'Y

> I

"o -n c

31.
co0 X CD
L Al 61,
0tA" DO
lo\ IPA
Q
pj@
z
co
-6 0 0, cl 0

CO -d
0

<
0 UPL

rn m
A@0
.0
Olt,
ILA dl"
0
c-

SMAN

0
/."4 ------- r'4
m 3,VLDAN
-Y 0
,/ t@
T TE 4"., -a 1'1@@ o
RD.M .4 z
SAMPSO

SCHLI WEIN 0
RE) c'UH '2
L -@k D; @KUHL RD.
0
>
MARK z
3 M".EIBLE 7Z :E Mon
ETTER c2
z ')z o '7
0 w 00 RD. 0
r cl
i< -4

D
TCH RD' -Y DE El@ RD.J
U jn A)v 10
------ ?m 0 rn 11
ARTON Fto- C) BLILEY r 0
Rm 'P
n r
0 r
L
r co ON
E rL z
JONCS 0 1 T
ml -6dil
AzINN38 10
zi '11@1 10 1
el

T04*@ E
Z. 7
M, z
;P ;o
' I 0;r-
PLUM,, RD. r
DOUGAN A
--N R@- AN
RD.

w I
A3N 0009-m-us, :0
901.91. 'Rd '01PAscuu0n C
gv-ot I -Z 9 %IWIXISUld -'PW AW-8 OLS Z
17 u3ewnN E)NIMV110 VINVAIASNOd '3183 JO AM r4s.lw,*GdS IVIUDWUOJIAU3
:3-IVZ)S SJ&uuvld - r4s!soloeE) . sissulbuB
'ONI 'SINviinSNOIR
3lVa
AGES llVd 3183
V 31VN8311V 31F10H mon8i
aN NMG
t-5 3ungiA

c", 0;@"' --71

V C
c
7-
C@ >
14 d) 15 Ul

a)
z IIACKkE
S-3 0 0@ &

(10
C,-a
lp\
1E
rn
lz
R D. /4,
80 0
rrl
C
z z
71
Z:
c
\-O rn
:::PC >

0
co

0
0 7
"A
O@
z
0 ;D
z
IPA
o d

Oy
< < rn 'C'.
0 cn
.0 0
Ir
A m m

L)
000 .9,-, b\
0 @O
Al

0
m 0 31; allvq VIP
",00---, m 30TIMAN
V
TE T\
-ZIn
CD SCKLIWbWEIN I ') @ c
0
c/) / S) @ . I . C.)
RD KUHL. @ ; 1@
0
SA.11.11 RC.m Z- 0,

0
E,
MA R K rs@ Cc: 1:30 Ar pr 0 ):6
IBLE @ X -
ETTE RD. x I z co
z m
r0
iz; R 0
4,,/
A M 51m -
>1 1 0-
< CA
0 0
Ol DUTCH RD- DE*WYE RD- i@' RD. (D I I
z
ARTONX Z) 11,
Fgto. BLILEY RD. PECK RD. c. r
r
rr

JONES
0 z J. 3NN32 X
,.1 q o v-\
r
V

TO
c:
PLUM
-,W:) n a "1 RD.
sr)@i -ds -6@1
- ---------
c')
b
.Tr)N RD- I DOUGAN RD.
DOUGAN

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. C-7

Table C-1

T
TRAVEL TIMES BETWEEN INTERSECTION OF 1-90 AND T.R. 531
TO PROPOSED BAYFRONT INDUSTRIAL PARK OPPOSITE PARADE STREET

Time Total Times
Alternate Link Node (Minutes) (Minutes)
I T. R. 531 (1)
1-90 T. R. 8 6(2) 25
1-90 & 1-79 J-79/26th St. 13 (3) 19
1-79 & Bayfront 6
Road
Bayfront Ind.
Park
2 1-90 T. R. 531 6(l)
T.R. 8 & Parade St. T. R. 8 20 (2) 29
Bayfront Road Front Street 3(3) 23
Bayfront Ind.
Park
3 1-90 T. R. 531 30)
T. R. 430 T.R. 430 17 (2) 23
Bayfront Road Hammermill 3(3) 20
Bayfront Ind.
Park
4 T. R. 531, 955, T. R. 531 & 1-90 (2)
and 5 20
Bayfront Road Hammermill 3(3) 23
Bayfront Ind.
Park

(1) Calculated from distance and 55 mph speed
(2) Floating car measurement, adjusted for truck speed*
(3) Calculated from distance and estimated Bayfront Road speed

*Adjustments for Truck Speed
Alternate Measured (minutes) Estimated for Truck (minutes)

1 12 13
2 17 20
3 12 17 (restricted by offset streets at T.R. 20
intersections)
4 15 20 (restricted by RR overpass)

I . .

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. D-i

Table D-1
TYPICAL DAILY(l) KOPPERS RAILROAD OPERATIONS
CROSSING PROPOSED BAYFRONT ROAD

Crossing (2)
Time Range
(Minutes)- Movement

2-3 1. Light engines cross forward to ore trestle.

5-15 2. Engines pick up empty coal cars (av. 12-16; max 20) and
cross back to lake front yard.
5-15 3. Engines (4) return with full coal cars (av. 12-16.(5) max
' 6
20) pushing empty coke cars (av. 6-8; max 20 and
cross forward to first whallon storage tracks to deposit
empty coke cars, and then
5-15 4. Engines (4) and full coal cars cross back.

5-15 5. Engines and full coal cars cross forward to ore trestle.

2-3 6. Light engines cross back.

2-3 7. Light engines cross forward to whallon track to distribute
empty coke cars to "race course" and/or

5-10 8. Engines and empty coke cars cross back.

5-10 9. Engines and empty coke cars cross forward to ore trestle.

2-3 10. Light engines cross back.

2-3 11. Light engines cross forward to second whallon track to
distribute empty coke cars within the plant.

2-3 12. After assembly of full coke cars on first whallon track
(engines working from east side), the light engines
cross back on second whallon track.

2-3 13. Light engines cross forward to first whallon tracks to
pick up full coke cars (6-8 av; max 20).

5-10 14. Engines cross back with full coke cars to lake front yard.

5-10 15. Engines cross forward with full coal cars (6 max.) to
first whallon track.

2-3 16. Light engines cross back.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. D-2

Table D-1
(continued' )

2-3 17. Light engines cross forward on second whallon track to
distribute full coal cars to coal trestle.

Based on full plant capacity. Sequence of operations varies daily depending
upon weather, plant operations and delivery.
2Speed of train normally 2-3 mph through crossing with 4 mph max. Speed
and time of crossing depend on weather, size of load, and stopping point.
3Double engines; "light engines" means there are no cars attached.
4Steps 3 and 4 normally require continuous closing of road since "whallon
tracks" not long enough to hold entire train.

In winter, number of coal cars reduced to about 1/2 normal number supple-
mented with on-site coal storage.

Empty coke cars may be crossed 20 to 3 times per week, eliminating crossings
number 3 and 4 the other days.

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
D-3

Table D-2
AN ALTERNA TE TYPICAL DAILY (1) KOPPERS RAILROAD OPERATION
CROSSING PROPOSED BAYFRONT ROAD

Crossing (2)
Time Range
(Minutes) Movement

5-15 1. Engines cross forward to first whallon tracks with full
coal cars (av. 12-16; max. 20)
2-3 2. Light engines (3) cross back.

2-3 3. Light engines cross forward to ore trestle.

5-15 4. Engines with empty coal cars (av. 12-16; max. 20) cross
back.

5-10 5. Engines with empty coal cars cross forward to second
whallon track.

2-3 6. Light engines cross back.

2-3 7. Light engines cross forward to first whallon track.

5-15 8. Engines cross back with full coal cars (av. 12-16; max.
20)

5-15 9. Engines and full coal cars cross forward to ore trestle.

2-3 10. Light engines cross back.

5-10 11. Light engines cross forward to second whallon track.

5-10 12. Engines cross back with empty coal cars (av. 12-16; 20
max. ) to take to lake front yard.

5-10 13. Engines with empty coke cars (av. 6-8; max. 20) cross
forward to first whallon to "race course".

2-3 14. Light engines cross back.

2-3 15. Light engines cross forward on second whallon tracks to
distribute empty coke cars within the plant.

2-3 16. After assembly of full coke cars from first whallon tracks
(engines work from east side), the light engines cross
back on second whallon track.

2-3 17. Light engines cross forward to first whallon track to pick
up full coke cars (6-8 av. ; max. 20).

GAI CONSULTANTS, INC, D-4

Table D-2
(continued)

5-10 18. Engines cross back with full coke cars to lake front yard.

5-10 19. Engines cross forward with full coal cars (6 max.) to
first whallon track.

2-3 20. Light engines cross back.

2-3 21. Light engines cross forward on second whallon track to
distribute full coal cars to coal trestle.

1Based on full plant capacity. Sequence of operations varies daily depending
upon weather, plant operations and delivery.
2Speed of train normally 2-3 mph through crossing with 4 mph max.
3Double engines; "light engines" means there are no cars attached.

WOJ
4

n 00
3
0 V C9
0
00
13

0
E@ Fm VR
0 -103
(L

RACM
COUR436
%twWAL-LONj 93TACKING
PROP09, TRAC64S
So

CHKD.
DWN.
Cz p I p_ PL-ANT
lv" 2gii RAIL-ROAD APPD. DATE
mg
CON . MTS. INC. SCALE:
00-1091919 * mannois
Environm4niso specialists Fri GURE D -1 DnAWING NUMBEn
670 easily Ad. . pillsbulgh. 4.0
mmFosmills. Pa. 15,46

11- A, I-A. Pit 0307- 1074

I V" 4 1@ I NJ A;;I

I r I r I I I I I

I GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
April 14, 1972

The Honorable Bernard J. Dombrowski
House of Representatives
328 Capitol
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Dear Mr. Dombroswki:

I am writing in reply to your letter of March 30, addressed
to Ms. Elaine King, concerning the future of the rail line from Erie
to Warren.
The Department's policy related to the preservation of
abandoned Conrail lines is that we will provide limited State
assistance for operating subsidies and accelerated maintenance to
shippers' groups and other railrods which acquire lines from Con-
rail. To receive State assistance, each line must meet certain
eligibility requirements established by the Department. The
Department will not participate in the acquisition of any of these
lines. There is also limited federal funding available for re-
habilitation projects.
The State assistance for the Warren area and for Wilkes-
barre, which the Governor announced, will be provided in each case
in accordance with the program guidelines outlined above. In each
of these cases, the shippers indicated their intentions to finance
the purchase of the rail lines they want to preserve. The State
assistance will be provided for accelerated maintenance work to be
performed after the shippers purchase the lines.
Regarding the line from Erie to Warren, I believe this
Bureau has gone as far as it can by providing information and
technical assistance to the rail users and others in the area.
Acquisition of this line is now a local decision to be made. I do
understand, however, that the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad is
still proposed acquisition of the former Erie Lackawanna mainline
from Conrail. You might want to contact them directly about their
plans.
If you wish to pursue further the Department's policy on the
preservation of abandoned Conrail lines, I suggest that you contact
either Secretary Larson or Deputy Secretary Don Bryan.

Sincerely yours,

bc: Mr. Thomas C. Hoffman William C. Underwood, Director
Bureau of Public Transit &
Goods Movement Systems

-j
11011111111111
3 6668 14101 1942

570 Beatty Road, Pittsburgh, Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146 '(412)