View the February 15 seminar recording
Nicole Coene
Good afternoon or good morning to those of you in the West. Welcome to the Talking Freight Seminar Series. My name is Nicole Coene and I will moderate today's seminar. Today's topic is: Intermodal Freight Connectors – Issues and Needs.
Before I go any further, I do want to let those of you who are calling into the teleconference for the audio know that you need to mute your computer speakers or else you will be hearing your audio over the computer as well.
Today we'll have three presentations, given by:
Dike N. Ahanotu is a Principal in the Oakland office of Cambridge Systematics with 16 years of experience in developing state DOT and MPO freight plans, analyzing freight transportation data, and conducting research to integrate best practices into the freight planning and programming process. Dr. Ahanotu received a Doctorate degree in Civil Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering with a Minor in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dina Lopez is responsible for the freight program under the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission's (MORPC's) Transportation Systems and Funding department. In her role, Dina assists on a number of projects with the purpose of identifying freight-significant infrastructure investment needs, workforce mobility, and economic development opportunities.
Bruce Mann is the Freight Mobility Manager for the Port of Houston Association. He is responsible for maritime related freight transportation activities (including but not limited to rail, roadway, and barge transportation) and identifying and supporting freight transportation projects that improve access to Port of Houston facilities (public and private) to enable growth in commerce, increase transportation options and reduce transportation costs.
Mr. Mann is an accomplished transportation manager with over 15 years' experience in procurement and operations for some of the world's largest chemicals manufactures and trading companies as well as a Class I railroad.
Mr. Mann is the Treasurer for the North American Rail Shippers Association, on the Board of Directors for the Southwest Association of Rail Shippers, a member of the Houston Transportation Club, a member of the Houston Transportation Professionals Association, a dynamic public speaker and recognized industry expert.
Today's seminar will last 90 minutes, with 60 minutes allocated for the speakers, and the final 30 minutes for audience Question and Answer. If during the presentations you think of a question, you can type it into the chat area. Please make sure you send your question to "Everyone" and indicate which presenter your question is for. Presenters will be unable to answer your questions during their presentations, but I will start off the question and answer session with the questions typed into the chat box. If time allows, we will open up the phone lines for questions as well. If we run out of time and are unable to address all questions we will attempt to get written responses from the presenters to the unanswered questions.
The PowerPoint presentations used during the seminar are available for download from the file download box in the lower right corner of your screen. The presentations will also be available online within the next few weeks, along with a recording and a transcript. I will notify all attendees once these materials are posted online.
Talking Freight seminars are eligible for 1.5 certification maintenance credits for AICP members. In order to obtain credit for today's seminar, you must have logged in with your first and last name or if you are attending with a group of people you must type your first and last name into the chat box. More detailed instructions on how to obtain your credits are available on the AICP website.
For those of you who are not AICP members but would like to receive PDH credits for this webinar, please note that FHWA does not formally offer PDHs, however, it may be possible to receive PDHs for your participation in Talking Freight if you are able to self-certify. To possibly receive PDHs, please download the agenda from the file download box and submit this agenda to your respective licensing agency.
Finally, I encourage everyone to please also download the evaluation form from the file share box and submit this form to me after you have filled it out.
I'm now going to turn it over to Dike Ahanotu of Cambridge Systematics to get us started.
Dike Ahanotu
Thank you, Nicole. I'm going to be presenting today under Federal Highway Administration freight and intermodal connectors study. A presentation will be focused on be intermodal connector assessment tool which was the focus of the second-half of this study. It's a follow-up to a presentation I gave about a year ago we discussed first half of a study which covered a wide range of topics which I will cover in a few slides. In terms of a topics to discuss today, first I will be talking -- will be giving a description of the overall study and how the intermodal connector assessment tool fits into that broader a study. I want to spend a little bit of time talking about changes to the designation criteria for freight intermodal connectors that were researched as part of that study. The last three bullets on this slide are focused on some of the data elements related to the intermodal assessment tool in terms of what went into the creation and development of the tool and what the tool will be used for as part of the intermodal connector process.
A description of the overall study: about six or seven tasks involved in the first half of the study. It started with a literature and data review to figure out what were all the data sources and relevant literature no freight intermodal connectors that had been done in the last 15 years since the NHS program has been in use. Will talk about the trajectory of a freight intermodal activity - which modes are growing and what locations are growing and how quickly are these elements growing for freight intermodal connectors. We have this template where we talked about the use condition performance of freight connectors and the main characteristics that we wanted to study and track. Again, using all the available data to figure out what the conditions or characteristics of freight connectors are across all the different modes, functionally classifications and geographical locations as well. Also, to describe how intermodal connectors are currently incorporated in the planning study. We did that in a couple different ways. We did 18 case studies across all modes and across the country in terms of how planning is utilized for freight intermodal connectors.
Two of those case studies, one was related to Port of Houston, the second was in the Cleveland Metropolitan area. We'll have representatives that can speak to their programs today. Much of the information was included in the case studies that are part of the project. Really, the overall emphasis of the broader study was understanding planning for freight intermodal connector and two of the final elements that we included were the cost to improve and operate on freight intermodal connectors and how do connectors fit into broader supply chains for freight.
As I mentioned, one of the topics that we spent some time studying was what types of changes in the designations to criteria should be considered. The criteria were developed about 15 years ago and have not been changed since their initial designation. We wanted to figure out if there was a better way to define what freight intermodal connectors are based on transit that has occurred or based on new data that currently exists.
Some of the elements that were considered - a lot of this came out of a first case study, the first half of the study - should we expand definition for freight intermodal connectors to somehow include truck terminals or freight villages? Should a minimum truck volume threshold be raised from 100 trucks to something higher? Again, 100 trucks was something used in 2001. Obviously truck volumes have increased considerably since then. Should the minimum volume threshold be increased as well?
One of these things we heard from the private sector was that they consider connectors to be roadways that go from freight terminals all the way to the interstate system. Is that something that should be considered in the freight intermodal connector designation? Also, there were comments about if there should be signage to designate NHS connectors to give them more prominence in the road network. We left it open for some of the stakeholders that we talked to, to provide additional information to things they thought should be changed to that designation criteria.
Who did we talk to? Folks that we included in this process, we had seven state DOTs from Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and North Dakota. We spoke to five MPOs across the country. We had kind of an informal interview guide so we went to all that different topics and allowed people to provide comments on each of the different topics that we were interested in, in terms of designating intermodal freight connectors. In some of that feedback, even though there was some interest in expanding the definition of freight intermodal connectors to include truck-truck terminals, there was a mixed opinion on whether they should be included. Truck terminals are growing in importance and freight villages that are popping up across a country that were documented, but defining what a truck-truck terminal is would be challenging in terms of the spatial representation and in terms of truck volume as well. This was highlighted by that fact that sometimes you can have one single facility as a truck-truck terminal back that can generate hundreds and hundreds of truck trips or you can have a freight intensive area spread across several thousand acres which also generates 100 trucks. How would you define what a truck-truck terminal is? There is definitely agreement that truck-truck terminals are becoming important and roadways that are connecting to truck-truck terminals or freight villages are something that are going to be important to include in a freight planning effort, but in terms of designating them as intermodal connectors, I would classify opinions as more mixed. Some people were in favor and some were not.
In terms of raising the minimum truck volume threshold, there was more agreement that 100 trucks per day was still seen as appropriate. A lot of people who had already designated their NHS connectors that were continuing to use that 100-truck threshold were concerned about losing designations for some of the existing roadways and did not want to raise that threshold.
There was a desire to replace a truck volume threshold with something that was more directly related to the economic importance of a roadway rather than just a number of trucks. To talk about how important is the road for the economic activity within the sub region. We came up with a few examples of how you might be able to do that. That was more of the feedback that we heard from that people we interviewed. One of the criteria of freight intermodal connectors is the marine mode has an exception that allows clusters of Marine buildings to be designated as a freight terminal. There was interest by people representing some of the other modes that maybe this could apply to other modes as well.
In terms of some of be other topics that came up, there was not a lot of support for designation of routes connecting terminals to the interstate system. One topic we covered was should states be owners and operators of all NHS connectors and would that be beneficial to the system. We also talked about dedicated freight connector funding programs and the potential for rescreening existing connectors for eligibility of using the original designation criteria. Those are areas where there was not a whole lot of interest placed on those items.
Where there was some concurrence in terms of some of the most important issues related to freight intermodal connectors: the lack of current and accurate data was perceived as a biggest need across all the connectors. In particular, truck volumes on connectors in NHPMS doesn't always match what field data shows through studies conducted on connectors. People felt like you need to go out and connect new data on these roadways and monitor their performance, as well.
Additionally, there's are many connectors that are not yet included in NPMRDS (the database FHWA recently started). There was a lot of interest in making sure the designated freight intermodal connectors were included in NPMRDS so that the speed data would be available for those roadways. Also, issues in terms of publishing private sector terminal operator data. It can be problematic and that's one of the most important sources of information for freight intermodal connectors.
As I mentioned before, more sophisticated metrics for understanding how well the connectors are performing, not just in relation to typical volume and speed metrics, but also for what is of value of goods, and what is the economic cost of a delay on these roadways as well.
That was one of the topics that we discussed in the first half of this portion of the study. Then we spent time working on the Intermodal Connector Assessment Tool (ICAT). This was a tool that was originally commissioned by FHWA in 2008 by conducting a survey of state DOTs where they were requested to send back information on the freight intermodal connectors in their state. There were 21 data fields spread across four different categories. The first was identification and ownership. What exactly is the roadway in terms of its functional class, its alignment, its length? Characteristics for identifying the roadway. We also talked about be use, condition, and performance of the connectors as well. Similar to what was done in the first half of the study. It was a voluntary survey. Less than a dozen states responded so there was a lot of information in it but it was not uniformly spread across the country.
Then the question for this part of the study was: what to do with the intermodal connector assessment tool in terms of making it more useful for understanding at a national level what is happening with freight intermodal connectors. Diving into whether this is the right tool for tracking intermodal connector performance. One of the things we wanted to look at is: how do you improve data quality for some of the elements that are currently in the ICAT tool and for truck count data, was one of the big issues. One of the big categories what seem to be an issue for a lot of different stakeholders. One of the options for improving truck count data is increased data collection on connectors, particularly in regards to classification counts in terms of frequency (a requirement for HPMS that the states have to do every year. Also, putting information on trucks, auto, and train volumes at crossings which was found to be a major issue and making that information available in HPMS as well.
In terms of speed data, it is a matter of increasing coverage of the NHS freight connectors. Making sure that the data has a particular focus on the NHS freight connectors.
Freight performance measurement data itself was really about standardizing and increasing the number of update cycles that link the roadway network information between HPMS and NPMRDS. One of the issues was that HPMS has a different road network than NPMRDS. There is a conversion tool that allows you to go back and forth but it needs to be updated on a regular basis. It was done as a one off and it should be something that would be done on a regular basis – that you can pass information between the two sources.
In terms of crash data, it was particularly problematic because crash data typically is held in a completely different database than what is utilized for the road networks. So, there is a need to standardize that across states so there can be a national picture of what type of crashes are occurring on freight intermodal connectors. There would be another number of other benefits towards this standardization as well.
In terms of improving data quality: origin-destination data is something that was seen as important. The main ways to improve that would be to doing gate surveys at the freight terminals or utilizing truck GPS data to fill in origins and destinations. On a supply chain data side, there was not a whole lot more that could be done other than interviewing folks that are operating and using these freight terminals. Potential for leveraging freight transaction data to make some estimates of how the connectors fit in with the broader supply chain as well.
Those were some of the elements we looked at in terms of data quality.
The next item we looked at was the ICAT tool itself: should it be used in the future in terms of continuing to have a standalone database for freight connectors or is it something that should be pursued further in terms of being the go to source for freight intermodal data and information. So, we look at what a standalone database would look like in terms of the fields that should be included and we identified and 23 critical data fields and 34 fields as a whole. It expands upon fields in the existing ICAT database. It builds upon what is already there. Also, we consider what types of formats the data are currently in and what is the compatibility across these formats as well.
In terms of the other considerations - how you might capture freight intermodal connector data is to utilize existing databases and have those databases be compatible to be a source of information used for planning. So, the major sources of information right now are HPMS, NPMRDS, and crash data. BTS is currently expanding and improving upon their geospatial tools which was seen as a potential source of intermodal connector information. You can see this schematic on the right which shows how the database is being structured so that the intermodal connector information will be part of the geospatial tool and be part of the format.
If you're going to use existing databases and not have a standalone tool, how would you link the information together across of these databases – both in a short run and in a long run. How would you synchronize them?
A little more information - this shows some of the fields that are in the BTS geospatial database. You see they have information such as a station type (which is a terminal type), origin-destination information, what type of activities are occurring at a terminal. What types of handling activities occurring as well? That is information that would obviously be important in terms of understanding what is happening for the freight terminals – which relate to the connector activities as well.
In terms of what we recommended, we looked across four main dimensions to figure out would a standalone tool would be better or leveraging existing databases. We look at accuracy, accessibility, ease of future updates, and maintenance requirements for the database. We found that things such as NPMRDS and advances such as the geospatial tool are occurring in a way that makes it easier to link across different databases over time. So, our recommendation was to leverage existing data sources and working with owners and operators of those databases to make sure that the intermodal connector data is consistent across these sources and that it is updated on a regular basis and accessible to users, particularly the planners who are focused on doing freight improvement projects.
That gets us through the intermodal connector assessment tool, what the future is of that tool. The last part of a project - which we are currently working on - is what type of guidance to develop in terms of intermodal connector planning as part of broader freight planning studies. The main activity we're doing is taking a state freight plan guidance which you can access at the link and shown on the screen, and going through each of the different topic areas of the guidance and figuring out whether intermodal connectors are part of those different elements and if so how they would relate to those different elements.
Two examples we are focused on right now are critical rural and urban freight corridors and how intermodal freight connectors would be considered relative to that category of information as required in state freight plans. Also, inventory that is required in terms of identifying roadways with freight mobility issues - how would you incorporate intermodal connectors into that process as well. That is a task that's underway and should be wrapping up relatively quickly.
In terms of next steps for the study, the final report from the first half of a study should be up on FHWA's website sometime in February. Either the end of February or early March. As we work through the second half of the study we are going to be completing technical memos under guidance for planning activities. In addition to the earlier information on the ICCAT tool, we perceive that the overall project will be completed sometime in mid-June of this year and will be available on website as well. That concludes my presentation for today.
Nicole Coene
Thank you, Dike. We will now move on to Dina Lopez of Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Dina Lopez
Thank you. Hello everyone. My presentation today will be focusing on Central Ohio's regional freight coordination initiative. In specific I'll be talking about the Rickenbacker logistics area, an area, which has been the focus of multiple stakeholder collaborations for infrastructure investments, and economic development strategies tailored to leverage the area's intermodal assets and bring jobs to the region.
Here's a brief presentation outline. I will start today by giving you some context on the significance of freight to Central Ohio and then move on to a brief overview of the Rickenbacker area's history. This will frame the information about intermodal connectors in the area. I will conclude with the area's intermodal assets along with our region's planning efforts for the Rickenbacker area and its intermodal connectors.
For those of us in Ohio, historically we have been a crossroads for transportation. Central Ohio is strategically within a 10-hour truck drive of 47% of U.S. population and 44% of U.S. manufacturing capacity. Central Ohio's location led to our early development as a logistical center. Today our location is just as critical and combined with stakeholder collaboration, the area's success continues.
In addition to that, we've seen quite a bit of increased traffic from national and international freight infrastructure improvement projects such as a Panama Canal expansion, the heartland corridor, and improvements surrounding the Chicago CREATE projects as well as the Port of Virginia. All of this has led to increasing flow of freight coming through our region.
A brief history of the Rickenbacker area: It all began with a development of the Lockbourne Air Force base in the early 1940's that was built to support World War II operations. By the 1970's, it was renamed to the Rickenbacker Air Force Base. In the 1980's, people started talking about realigning the airport to have other uses. Stakeholders wanted to have a foreign trade zone and the inland port commission was established in the mid-1990's. Stakeholders in the region knew that they wanted to have more than just an Air Force base. In 1996, the first master plan for the airport was completed and the City of Columbus annexed about 2000 acres. This meant access to utilities (water, sewer, etc.) and allowed the land surrounding the airport to be developed. A lot of warehouses started coming in around that time, being built to maximize the use of the air cargo facility that was being developed. In 2008, Norfolk Southern opened a rail intermodal facility just south of the airport. This was a big deal because it now meant we had air cargo and rail as well as access to highways through our intermodal connectors. This led to a lot of development in the area and we started to see companies like Abercrombie and Fitch, The Limited, Eddie Bauer, and a whole bunch of other big retail brands coming in and setting up distribution centers in the Rickenbacker area.
The growth has been such in the Rickenbacker area that we're experiencing congestion now. So, in 2017, Norfolk Southern began to do an intermodal facility expansion to accommodate an additional number of loads.
As I mentioned before, we knew that we had the airport facility that was going to accommodate cargo. Now we had the rail intermodal facility and we understood as a region that we needed to make sure that connections to the highway systems were adequate. As you know, the state of Ohio designates intermodal connectors of statewide significance through their long-range transportation plan. The Rickenbacker area has three significant intermodal connectors connecting the intermodal yard and the airport to the national highway system.
This is a map showing user location of the airport. Downtown Columbus is right here. It is less than a 20-minute drive from downtown Columbus to the Rickenbacker Airport, facilities, and the intermodal yard. Here we have the intermodal facility just south of the airport and this is the airport itself. These roads marked in red are the intermodal connectors designated in Access Ohio 2040 and these are recognized by pretty much every level of government as being significant to the freight movement – not only of the region and the state, but nationally as well.
Here is an aerial of the Rickenbacker international cargo airport. As you can see, Alum Creek Drive is a major access point. Alum Creek drive allows access to 270. 270 is connected to 71 and 70, so it's all part of the NHS. We also have the East-West connector to the south, which provides access to that 23 which is part of the state freight network.
We have experienced a lot of growth, a lot of freight coming in and out of this area. I've put together a trends figure to show you the growth of the airport facility. As you can see in 2015 we saw quite a bit of growth and we continue to see growth.
Here is another chart I put together for the Norfolk Southern intermodal facility, showing intermodal lifts. As you can see, the facility is already at capacity now. So, the expansion that is happening this year is to accommodate the growth that is happening. Last year they were already operating at something close to capacity.
What are we doing to make sure that these areas continue to thrive and that infrastructure investments are happening in a way that are supporting and facilitating job creation and growth? What are we doing to make sure our success is not hindering further growth? By that I mean congestion and capacity of the intermodal facilities. MORPC has an ongoing freight planning program. As it relates to intermodal connectors, what we do is to provide input into state and federal planning processes. This includes ODOTs intermodal connectors review, FHWA's primary freight network designation process. Most of you on the phone would have been involved in that as well and provided comments. One of these things that we did was to assure that Alum Creek Drive was included in a primary freight network (it was not in the first review a few years ago). We also assist MPO members in assessing improvement needs as growth in Rickenbacker continues. We advocate and try to make sure that attention is being given to the importance of understanding these intermodal connectors and how they support freight movement. We also coordinate a lot with the employers to understand their concerns along some of these routes and how we can facilitate the movement of their products out of the area in a way that will keep them there. If you're too successful and have too much congestion it could lead to some of the businesses leaving because of congestion problems.
Another thing that our MPO has embraced is facilitating innovation and new technologies along intermodal connectors where appropriate. A lot of the new smart technologies are intended for highways and long stretches. But there is a push within the stakeholders to look at Alum Creek Drive as a pilot area to test out new and innovative technologies.
In addition to ongoing monitoring and input to federal and state freight planning or policy initiatives, we also conduct our own planning to try to stay ahead of the curve and try to ensure that we are being strategic. We want to be ahead of a curve rather than reacting to growth. One of the things we're working on is called the Rickenbacker Area Comprehensive Study. This study will be concluded in 2018. It is a follow-up of a 2008 road network assessment that was done by MORPC as well. This 2018 study is a lot more ambitious in that it is multifaceted. It is looking at existing factors and the projected growth potential. We're looking at the next 10 to 20 years. This whole study runs parallel to be airport authority's 2018 Rickenbacker Airport Master Plan update.
This is the study area and it is quite big. It is 137 mi2. The reason we chose that big of area is because he wanted to make sure to capture all the different municipalities and jurisdictions that have a vested interest in the success of Rickenbacker and who have invested funds in infrastructure or workforce mobility, anything that has to do with retaining and bringing more jobs to this area was included in this study.
This shows the access to major highways in the area.
This is an overview of the primary areas that this study is tackling. We're looking at infrastructure but are extending it beyond the highways. Looking at sanitary water and broadband. Looking at housing as it relates to the land around be airport and intermodal facility to ensure that there are no conflicting land uses moving ahead into the future. Bearing in mind that this study will be used by our members and by other jurisdictions that have their own comprehensive plans and zoning, they will be using it as a guide to inform updates to their comprehensive plan. We're looking at energy, economic development, and place making. By place making, I mean many areas that are heavy on logistics and warehousing tend to not be very appealing. One of the things we're trying to do is to identify main corridors (of which Alum Creek Drive will probably be one) and trying to think ahead of how we can bring incentives for making it better and nicer and giving it a little bit of a sense of place.
What is significant about this place making component is that the likelihood is that it will include pretty much the intermodal connectors that were identified in that first map at Alum Creek Drive and Rickenbacker Parkway and maybe the East-West connector depending on what our findings show. But all of those three intermodal connectors will be part of a place making effort to also try to incorporate nicer type of amenities to those corridors.
In addition to the Rickenbacker study, the city of Columbus is also doing a Smart Columbus project. For those of you not familiar with it - the city of Columbus won the USDOT's $40 million Smart City Challenge in June 2016. Columbus was also awarded a $10 million grant from Vulcan Inc. In addition to that, the Columbus Partnership which is made up of pretty much all the major corporations that have headquarters or heavy investments in the Columbus region, put forth another $50 million. So, it's a big pocket of money that they're working with and what they are trying to do is look at how smart technology will facilitate transportation in the future. One of these components includes logistics. For logistics, they just want to look at the integrated data and exchange and see what that would look like. They are thinking about apps and looking at broadband making sure we're paving the way for the future of autonomous vehicles or anything else that might be coming down the pipeline that will need smart technology.
Here is a map of the areas that Smart Columbus is focusing on. As you can see, in the south here is the Rickenbacker area logistics center. This is the Alum Creek Drive intermodal connector. This is a project currently underway and part of the advisory committee or working group that is working on these logistics components - they are looking at things like light signals and could they do something like an autonomous segment along this highway. It is still very early on in these discussions, but it is significant enough that our regional stakeholders want to make sure that we are including these intermodal connectors and considering how best to connect the intermodal facility and the airport to the highway system using smart technology.
That's all I have for today. If you have any questions for me, please let me know at end of the presentation.
Nicole Coene
Thank you, Dina. We will now move on to Bruce Mann of the Port of Houston.
Bruce Mann
Thank you. We're going to take a few minutes to talk about what we're doing down in Port Houston. We'll start off with an overview of the agenda, of Port Houston, the Port Houston Authority (two different things), what my role is for the Port, and the impact on the region. For that and the process of freight mobility that we're working on now. As we finish up, we'll go to some questions.
Just a little background about Port Houston, it is massive. Most people cannot comprehend the size of the port, even folks in Houston. The Port and its economic impact is about 16% of the state GDP of Texas. The Texas Comptroller was here for a tour and said the Port is the economic engine of Texas. $265 billion of economic value. A little under 1.2 million jobs are generated because of the Port. Just the Port Authority has an operating revenue of $261 million which is up 11% year over year. $116 million in cash flow, up almost 30% from last year.
This is a map of the port region. It actually starts out down by Galveston and the ship channel goes out into the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is pretty shallow and we go out several miles to be able to get to deep waters. The entire shipping channel stretches about 52 miles from Galveston to the upper reaches in the Turning Basin, the upper ship channel, where most of the activity happens is in the upper 26 miles of the ship channel.
The Port Authority is a governmental sub division. We have a Port Commission overseen by a commission of seven people politically appointed. Our footprint in the broader Port area is very small. We own or operate eight public terminals. We operate two, for six we're a landlord. There are over 160 companies on the shipping channel for which we are not a landlord. We're the non-Federal sponsor of the ship channel, which is one of the primary reasons the Port Authority exists.
This is our Port commission, again they are all politically appointed. They do a fantastic job in the region and trying to educate folks about what we do and how important the Port is to Houston and the state. It's an incredibly busy shipping channel. We have almost 8,400 deep draft ships coming in which is almost as big as Long Beach/LA, and NYNJ put together. We have about 220,000 barge moves that come in and out of the Port region and 22,000 ship moves. A lot of these ships will come in and make two or three stops at different tanking facilities and dropping off chemical cargos at multiple facilities. The ship channel is very busy.
My role at the Port started two years ago. I'm the first person to have this role. It was because the Port saw this growth happening and they weren't sure the infrastructure in the region was adequate to support the growth of the broader port. We've always looked at our Federal responsibility for the ship channel and never contemplated having a responsibility for managing infrastructure for the region. This was a realization on the Port's part to say "we need make sure we facilitate cargo – not only through the Port facilities – but that it can get somewhere once it's here. It doesn't matter if we can move containers and liquid cargo if as soon as it hits the gate it can't get anywhere. This role was created to look at how we could influence that development and construction of infrastructure projects in the region to support the freight growth. It's one of a few positions in the Port that looks beyond our footprint to the entire port region.
What we have done - and it's been a long process because there is no template on how to do this - we looked at who are the different stakeholders that we need to engage in a conversation about where we should invest in the freight network in the Port region. This included the MPO, (Houston-Galveston Area Council), Harris County, 11 port region mayors, East Harris County Manufacturing Association, the Port, and numerous communities and companies. We are the second largest chemical complex and world. Rotterdam is the largest and is shrinking in size. Within 2-6 years, Houston will have the largest chemical complex in the world. There are 11 mayors in the Port region that are part of this process and there are several different advocacy groups that have all historically worked independently. In the last couple of months, we have worked hard to get everybody on the same page when it comes to port infrastructure and roads and rail projects that need to be built in this area.
Over last year, we have gotten everybody together with quite a few meetings about projects that need to be built. It's everything: intermodal connectors in the port for our container facilities, roads and regions of the port that are cut throughs when the interstate backs up; alternate routes, primary routes, there were built 20 years ago and now they don't have enough capacity.
So, we sat down and started listing projects. Then, it got really fun. We had to sit down with that list of projects and hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and agree what the priorities were. Once we did that, we're now in the last two steps which are socializing the list of projects. We started to have conversations with the MPO, TXDOT, Harris County on how do we get funds for developing these projects. I'm sure most people here know that freight doesn't vote. If TXDOT and the MPO have a choice to make between building a commuter road or a freight road, a commuter project is going to get built first. I think there's been a focus over the last few years – especially coming from the Federal DOT that says freight is important and we need to prioritize it. There was this formula grant now for fast lanes. How do we develop this project some when the funding is there, we can actually go and build it.
The next slide a listing of 27 projects. One of those things we say when we take this list out is "just because we say it is low-priority and long-term, it does not mean it is not important". It is relative. Every single one of these projects is high impact and short-term and if any one of them is not built, there is a consequence. To the port region but that means supply chains always go to the lowest cost. So, all of these projects over time involve higher cost. So, moving goods, delay, congestion, bad roads, having to do more maintenance on trucks - there is an impact for every one of these. It is starting to increase to cost of the supply chain. So, if you don't go fix this, and it gets worse, we will start to see business moving somewhere else. Port of Houston is 16% of the GDP for this state. It is huge for this state. A message we continuously talk about with everybody who will listen is: you have to invest in the cash cow. You have to put money in infrastructure so we can continue to put money into the till, because this thing keeps making money with all the chemical plants and facilities that are out there.
To last slide is a visual map of all these projects. Not surprisingly, most of them are adjacent to the ship channel. You'll see a few that are further out, away from that channel and those are alternate routes to get from the primary freight network. There is some up in the northeast section, manufacturing that is trying to move plastic resins down to the port region. They are building a new facility out there that will move about 240 trucks a day from that region down to the port. Our focus has been education to get everyone to understand that this stuff is important.
Secondly, these other projects that are important, now how do we find funds to invest in it and get these projects built because if we don't we're going to lose cargo. We're going to lose tax revenues. The port is not going to be everything that it needs to be. There are a lot of things that are also going along with this. I think DK made a good point about the lack of data out there. When we're trying to develop this process and make a cost-benefit analysis on why we ought to do these projects, there is no data out there a lot of times to say "hey this is how many trucks are on this road". We just know that because we have all of industry, to sit down and say there are a bunch of trucks that move along these roads. We have not counted them but we know there are more than 100. We need to make these investments because if we don't the business will not come here, they will go somewhere else.
In the last two weeks, we found out that we're going to be part of the automated vehicle proving ground. Part of that is in Houston around the Port region. The TX Medical center and some HOV lanes in Houston, along with other parts of the state. We are involved in a connected cities project, with TXDOT and Metro and the County and MPO to take a look at how we might use the app they have for trucks to start to try to get better measurement data about truck flows. Where they're going, how fast they go.
Lastly, it led to a lot of conversations about thinking outside the box about how we move freight in a region and how we toll in the region. We have a lot of toll roads in the Houston region. Trucks don't like to go on them, so they are going through the urban core which creates a whole set of problems. One of the conversations we are starting to have now is that congestion has a cost. It hits somebody's budget somewhere. If we were to take money out of those buckets that the trucks are causing and put it into a separate fund for congestion mitigation, now we have funds to give tolling authorities to make trips on the beltway and Grant Parkway around be urban core free for the truckers and toll authority would remain revenue neutral. The trucking company would not pay for it, so it would incentivize them to go around the urban core and help with congestion mitigation.
We're trying to get engaged with our stakeholders to decide how to create a network for the future and how to fix them one that we have. Because we really need to do both things. How do we engage our stakeholders to start to look at how we effectively utilize the infrastructure that is there? We don't operate our terminals 24 hours a day. Chemical facilities, retail, warehousing, and distribution centers don't operate their facilities 24 hours a day. At some point, that freight is going to want to move at night because that is where the capacity is. So, we in the region are starting to have those beginning conversations about what is a freight movement going to look like in 2040 and what can we do to facilitate that.
The last thing is alternate technology and things like freight shuttle or Hyperloop. What is the potential of using those? We signed an MOU with Freight Shuttle International, probably nine months ago, to take a look at technology like that and would it work in the Port region. If it would work, is there a monetary space for it to work. Because I think we are convinced that technology could fix some of these issues. But, is there enough money to make it work and how would it get funded. We're trying to look outside a box and focus on what the freight network of tomorrow would look like and how to fix the issues we have today.
Nicole Coene
Thank you, Bruce. Before we get started to that question and answer session, I want to go back to Dike's presentation. To present contact information or questions, please contact Tiffany Julian, FHWA project manager at Tiffany.Julian@DOT.gov.
We're going to start off with the questions from the chat box. Our first question is for Dina from Linda Koenig: How many centerline miles of NHS intermodal connectors are identified in relation to the Rickenbacker intermodal area?
Linda Koenig
I don't the exact number at this time but I will get back to her on that one. I don't have that in front of me. I know that Alum Creek Drive is roughly 2 miles, but I need to get ahold of the exact length before I answer.
Nicole Coene
Thank you, Linda. This is for you Dina: With the planned smart technologies include real-time curbside monitoring?
Dina Lopez
There are a lot of different technologies being discussed at this time but as you know, the project only launched at the end of last year. We are still grappling with administrative procedures and with the recommendations and what we're going to be looking at. We have talked about several technologies including curbside monitoring. I'm just not sure where it fits and help will be tackled at this time.
Nicole Coene
Thank you, Dana. Does Rickenbacker have any nearby potential link to waterfront or the marine highway system?
Dina Lopez
It depends on what Martha means by nearby. We do not have anything within our region, within our six-county region. The closest access to waterways would be north of us. Lake Erie, the ports of Toledo and Lorraine. We also have access to that port of Virginia through the Heartland Corridor by rail.
Nicole Coene
Thank you, Dina. We're going to move on to another question for Bruce from Dan Anderson. Has Port Houston had to take into consideration the new Panamax standard for freighters? Other locations have had to raise or replace bridges with insufficient clearance for Panamax freight ships.
Bruce Mann
Two questions there. The container side of it: our container facilities are on the water-sider of the bridges. So, you don't get to a bridge before you get to the container facilities. So, that leaves us with the ship channel and a depth issue. We spent somewhere north of $80 million of our own money (instead of federal taxes) to dredge out the container facilities to be able to handle the post-Panamax ships. At this point the freighters have not been an issue. Bridges that were built between 200 and 220 feet and the other cities, there is two reasons to do that, one is crude, the other is container ships. At the port of Galveston, the container ships don't get to those bridges. Over time, maybe some of the liquid bulk vessels might have an issue. But that is probably going to be width not air clearance.
Nicole Coene
Thank you, Bruce. Another question from Misty Cassidy: How is port of Houston engaging stakeholder groups or citizens that are not institutions? Is this part of the socializing projects that you are speaking of? Do these conversations go beyond jobs and economic growth?
Bruce Mann
We have a bunch of different stakeholder groups involved in this process. We have facilities that are in neighborhoods, so we reach out to communities in a lot of different ways. Specifically, we have used the economic lines in the port region to do a lot of this and in that group you have the mayors of all of the cities that are in the port region. We've reached out to city managers, mayors, Councilman, and that is kind of the way that we have engaged the population. It's through the governmental agencies the neighborhood associations. That is how we have done that.
There have been larger conversations about "these are the projects that we need to think done -and this is why we think they need to be done". Freight shuttle is an elevated guideway, kind of like a monorail for containers. We have an MOA. We haven't agreed to build anything. We are studying it. In The Chronicle a few months ago, someone drew a map and put a line on a map. The line does not reflect anything because it is not real. But a lot of folks got excited because it was a line on a map. So, we had to engage a lot of different community organizations as a result of that but it has been good because we have been able to talk about what it is we're trying to do and why it is important. What we really want to drive home is: not every commuter project will benefit freight but almost every freight project in our region will have a positive benefit on commuters. That's one of the things we like to drive home.
Nicole Coene
Thank you, Bruce. The next question comes from Thomas Malloy: As I understand it, Houston is quite a spaghetti bowl of railroads terminating in Houston and Houston Port terminals with numerous rail terminals with considerable congestion and operating challenges. Is there a Houston real equivalent of a Chicago create rail program? Or is there a specific package of rail infrastructure projects to address rail congestion issues within the Port Houston infrastructure project list.
Bruce Mann
Houston is interesting. It used to be 17 different railroads in Houston if you go back to about 1924. In 1924, we created a Port Terminal Railroad Association, which was an association of BN, UP, KCS, and the port authority. The PTRA operates on the north and south sides of the ship channel. There are some customers within that region but there are only UP or BN served, but 150 that are served by the PTRA. What that has done is allowed targeted investment in infrastructure shared by all those railroads to develop that network.
If we were having this conversation five years ago, everybody is talking about the decline of the chemical industry. The conversation would have been the opposite – "Well, we have capacity that we don't need, volumes are falling in the chemical industry". Well with shale oil and everything else that's tapped in, the conversation we're having now is "has there been enough infrastructure investment?" All I can tell you is that annual capital run rate for the PTRA used to be about $5 million a year. For the last four years, it has been about $20 million a year.
We have double tracked most of the PTRA. We have 3/10 of a mile that are single tracked on the south side of the ship channel. It is a project that has been founded MPO for $23 million to build a 3/10 of a mile because it's a bridge. When we finish that project, which will be sometime next year, we will have double tracked the north and south side of a ship channel.
I don't know that we need to create projects. I think part of it is a complex system in the port region. You've got shippers on the UP, packages on a PTRA. Historically, there has been some anecdotal stuff about transit times and people focus on the outliers. An example of that is if a shipper builds a car on a Friday and doesn't get switched on a Saturday or Sunday, a car will not move out until Monday. So you just burned a few days there. Then you go to interchange, get the car to a packager, they don't have the staff to bring it in, and next thing you know it takes eight or nine days of a car to get there. It wasn't just a railroad operation, it was also a packaging schedule issue, and a question of if the car was built on the right day.
Part of that is supply chain rationalization. Back in 2008 or 2009, PTRA had a meltdown. It was the result of quite a few different things. One of them was that plastic producers like to export product if there is not a US market for it. They don't like to hold onto this stuff indefinitely. It went to all those packagers and backed up all of those facilities. Those cars then backed up into the PTRA and shut down a system in Houston. Since then, there has been a lot of work to make sure that won't happen again. We've invested about $80 million or $90 million in the PTRA network. When that situation happens now, the PTRA has "en route" reports that are built for the packaging facilities. If they have too many cars en route, they won't let people build cars.
Manufactures have gotten a lot smarter about that process. I think the railroads continue to invest in the region and there are billions of dollars that the UP and the BN have invested along with the PTRA has invested because they knew this business was coming. Once they finish the double track project on the south side of a ship channel, I think we're in good shape to handle the volume that is coming.
Nicole Coene
Bruce, can you elaborate on barge movements and operation?
Bruce Mann
I would like to but I can't. My background is in rail and plastics manufacturers. Barges are in my job description but I haven't picked that up yet.
Nicole Coene
Bruce, how has the port coordinated the intermodal connectors list for the port with project prioritization by the HGAC MPO and TXDOT in your planning?
Bruce Mann
That was one of that benefits and outcomes of creating this prioritized infrastructure list. The first time TXDOT saw the list, we hadn't prioritized it. It was just a list. Then we spent a few months getting everybody together to work on and agree on what that prioritized list was. We TXDOT got the prioritized list back, as soon as they saw a few key roads on that list, they literally looked over to HGAC and said "We need a couple of studies on these corridors to figure out how to make this investment and what investment to make." The way we set this up in a process has facilitated us being able - in the future - to get funds for development of projects. We had a conversation yesterday with the MPO about trying to target funds for development of projects. So, when the funding becomes available, will be ready.
We also spend a lot of time working with HGAC and the MPO to talk about the composition of committees because part of this is how you play that game by the rules and part of that conversation is do we need to change the rules do make sure freight has more of a shot at funding? We're working on some of the composition of committees to try to get freight involved in the conversation about how projects get funding and what that categories are that determine that.
Nicole Coene
Thank you. The last question, from Emmanuel Aggreh: How has port Houston prepared for the Panama expansion? Has port Houston taken advantage of the renewed opportunities that the Panama Canal now offers?
Bruce Mann
We have spent a ton of money. Normally if you're doing dredging, the core funds it, and it takes a long time to get the funding. Not picking on the Corps, that's just the process. We made the decision to shortcut that process. We could not wait five to ten years to get the container facilities where they could handle the larger, deeper ships. We spent a little over $80 million of our own money to dredge out the facilities to make sure that the waterside was able to handle those ships.
Additionally, we invested (and are investing) over $1 billion to redevelop the Barber's Cut Terminal. That container terminal was built in about 1977. We're in the process of almost $1 billion redevelopment of that facility. In addition, 10 years ago we started building the Bay Port facility. It is not built out completely yet. We continue to invest in the Bay Port facility to have capacity ahead of that demand. Not too far ahead of it, but far enough ahead of it so we can take advantage of volume swings. So, when Port of LA / Long beach had a strike issue, a lot of that traffic jumped to Houston and we could take advantage of all that business that came because we had strategically invested in the land-side facilities to handle the surge in demand.
At Bay Port and with the redevelopment of Barber's Cut - between redevelopment of that facility and the continued development we're going to be at about 5 and 6 million TEU's of capacity. Today we're a little over 2 million TEUs. We still have plenty of room to grow.
In addition to that, we looked at some of the landside infrastructure outside of our gates. Back when earmarks were still around, we got earmarks for flyovers to come out of the Bay Port facility so trucks don't stop at stop signs coming in and out of the facilities. They take a flyover and get right on the highway. One of the things we have been working on for a while now, is to go parallel with the redevelopment of the Barber's Cut facility to get the same to get the same type of connectivity. It was built 50 years ago and it wasn't contemplated that we would grow that big when they built it. We're looking at what those bottlenecks are to try and get funding for the road-side and rail-side bottlenecks. Like I said, the double track project for the bridge is one, direct connectors at Barber's Cut is one, and then our own capital that we're spending. We spent a lot of money to get outside the gate infrastructure to match up with what we're doing at the terminals.
Nicole Coene
Thank you. We have gotten to the last question in the chat, so I'd also like to open up the phone lines. Please press *1 to get into the queue and have your phone line unmuted.
Dike this question is for you: Right now there is a bit of a disconnect between NHS intermodal connectors and NUCFN are there plans to coordinate the various system designations?
Dike Ahanotu
Part of a subtext that we're doing on guidance for planning a state freight plans is we're going to look at how different road networks are being designated including freight intermodal connectors and some of the other freight networks, to figure out what the overlaps are and develop recommendations and options to consider for FHWA in terms of these designations should overlap. It is something we plan on looking at but don't have an answer for right now.
Nicole Coene
I don't see any more questions so they're going to closeout. The recorded version of this event will be available in a next few weeks on the Talking Freight website. The next seminar will be held on March 15th and the topic is tentatively scheduled to be connected and automated freight vehicles current initiatives. Registration is not yet available, but I will send out a notice to the Freight Planning listserv announcing when registration is open. I encourage you to join the Freight Planning listserv if you have not already done so.
I would like to thank our presenters. Please enjoy to rest of your day.
