GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN
APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
December 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Background and Purpose ...... 1-1 1.2 Regional Collaboration ...... 1-1 2. Regional Freight Planning ...... 2-1 2.1 Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization ...... 2-2 2.1.1 Truck Freight ...... 2-2 2.1.2 Rail Freight ...... 2-2 2.2 Charlotte Region Transportation Planning Organization ...... 2-2 2.2.1 Freight Related Goals and Objectives ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Current Freight Statistics for Charlotte Region ...... 2-3 2.2.3 Statewide Freight Planning Initiatives that Affect the CRTPO Region ...... 2-8 2.3 Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization ...... 2-10 2.3.1 GCLMPO 2040 MTP Freight-Related Goals and Objectives ...... 2-10 2.3.2 Trucking ...... 2-11 2.3.3 Freight Rail ...... 2-12 2.3.4 Aviation ...... 2-12 2.3.5 Freight-Related Projects ...... 2-13 2.4 Rocky River Regional Planning Organization ...... 2-13 2.4.1 Stanly County (Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2012) ...... 2-13 2.4.2 Anson County (Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2012) ...... 2-13 2.5 Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study ...... 2-13 2.5.1 RFATS 2035 LRTP Freight-related Highway System Goal ...... 2-14 2.5.2 RFATS 2035 LRTP Freight Element Summary ...... 2-14 2.5.3 RFATS 2035 LRTP Freight Recommendations ...... 2-18 3. Freight Goals and Objectives ...... 3-1 3.1 Goal 1: Economic Competitiveness and Efficiency ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Objectives ...... 3-1 3.2 Goal 2: Safety and Security ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Objectives ...... 3-1 3.3 Goal 3: Infrastructure Preservation and Maintenance ...... 3-1 3.3.1 Objective ...... 3-2 3.4 Goal 4: Environmental Stewardship ...... 3-2 3.4.1 Objectives ...... 3-2 3.5 Goal 5: Congestion and Reliability ...... 3-2 3.5.1 Objectives ...... 3-2 3.6 Goal 6: Performance and Accountability ...... 3-2
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN i
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Table of Contents
3.6.1 Objectives ...... 3-2 3.7 Goal 7: Regional Coordination ...... 3-2 3.7.1 Objectives ...... 3-2 4. Stakeholder Outreach ...... 4-1 4.1 Coordinating Committee ...... 4-1 4.2 Steering Committee ...... 4-1 4.3 Interviews ...... 4-1 4.4 Surveys ...... 4-6 4.5 Freight Advisory Committee ...... 4-6 5. Freight Trends and Issues ...... 5-1 5.1 National Trends and Issues ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Panama Canal ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Freight Oriented Development ...... 5-1 5.1.3 Alternate Transportation Fuels ...... 5-1 5.1.4 Air Quality and Regulation ...... 5-2 5.1.5 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ...... 5-2 5.1.6 Climate Volatility...... 5-3 5.1.7 Dedicated Freight Infrastructure ...... 5-3 5.1.8 Connected and Autonomous Vehicles...... 5-3 5.1.9 E-Commerce and Drone Home Delivery ...... 5-4 5.1.10 Automated Permitting ...... 5-5 5.2 Regional Trends and Issues ...... 5-5 5.2.1 Demographics ...... 5-5 5.2.2 Economy ...... 5-8 5.2.3 Trucking ...... 5-9 5.2.4 Freight Rail ...... 5-11 5.2.5 Air Cargo ...... 5-12 5.2.6 Economic Development ...... 5-12 6. Current Conditions ...... 6-1 6.1 Highway/Trucking ...... 6-1 6.1.1 National Highway Freight Network ...... 6-2 6.1.2 Regional Truck Activity ...... 6-3 6.1.3 Functionally Obsolete & Structurally Deficient Bridges ...... 6-5 6.1.4 Truck Safety ...... 6-7 6.1.5 Truck Bottlenecks ...... 6-14 6.1.6 Truck Parking ...... 6-27 6.2 Intermodal Facilities ...... 6-31 6.3 Freight Rail ...... 6-33 6.3.1 Rail Service ...... 6-34
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN ii
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Table of Contents
6.3.2 Key Corridors and Facilities ...... 6-36 6.3.3 Freight Rail Bottlenecks and Constraints ...... 6-37 6.3.4 Current Rail Freight Capacity Improvement Projects ...... 6-39 6.3.5 Freight Rail Safety ...... 6-41 6.3.6 Freight Rail Security ...... 6-43 6.3.7 Rail Policies and Actions ...... 6-44 6.4 Aviation ...... 6-45 7. Freight Commodity Flow Demand ...... 7-1 8. National and State Freight Policies ...... 8-1 8.1 National Freight Advisory Committee ...... 8-1 8.2 National Freight Strategic Plan ...... 8-1 8.3 National Freight Policy ...... 8-1 8.4 Key Federal Freight Funding and Financing Provisions ...... 8-2 8.4.1 Surface Transportation Block Grant Program ...... 8-2 8.4.2 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program ...... 8-2 8.4.3 Highway Safety Improvement Program ...... 8-3 8.4.4 The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ...... 8-3 8.4.5 Railway-Highways Crossing (Section 130) Program ...... 8-3 8.4.6 Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ...... 8-3 8.4.7 Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Capital Grant Program ...... 8-3 8.4.8 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program ...... 8-4 8.4.9 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary Grant Program ...... 8-4 8.4.10 FAA Airport Improvement Program ...... 8-4 8.4.11 Department of Commerce ...... 8-4 8.5 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act ...... 8-5 8.5.1 Summary of Freight Funding Provisions in FAST ...... 8-5 8.5.2 State DOT Freight Planning and Performance Measures Requirements ...... 8-6 8.5.3 Federal Freight Funding ...... 8-7 8.5.4 Requirements for State Freight Planning ...... 8-9 8.5.5 Relevant USDOT Freight Requirements ...... 8-11 8.6 State Freight Policies ...... 8-12 8.6.1 Statewide Freight Planning ...... 8-12 8.6.2 North Carolina State Funding ...... 8-14 8.6.3 South Carolina State Funding ...... 8-15 9. Freight Mobility Best Practices ...... 9-1
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN iii
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: Sample Private Sector Stakeholders ...... 4-1 Table 5-1: Levels of Vehicle Automation ...... 5-4 Table 5-2: North Carolina, South Carolina, and US Population Comparison (2010 and 2015) ...... 5-5 Table 5-3: Regional Population (2010 and 2014) ...... 5-5 Table 5-4: Regional Employment (2012 and 2013) ...... 5-6 Table 5-5: Top Charlotte Region Export Countries (2013) ...... 5-8 Table 5-6: Top Charlotte Region Export Sectors (2013) ...... 5-9 Table 5-7: Transportation Factors and Economic Development ...... 5-12 Table 6-1: Truck VMT Compared to Total VMT (2015) ...... 6-4 Table 6-2: Weight Posted Bridges (March 2016) ...... 6-6 Table 6-3: Commercial Vehicle and All Motor Vehicle Crashes (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-9 Table 6-4: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Severity (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-9 Table 6-5: Persons Killed and Injured by Commercial Vehicle Crashes (2009 through-2013) ...... 6-9 Table 6-6: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Roadway Type and Severity (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-10 Table 6-7: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Roadway Conditions (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-10 Table 6-8: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Weather Conditions (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-11 Table 6-9: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Light Condition (2009 through-2013) ...... 6-11 Table 6-10: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Month and Severity (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-11 Table 6-11: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Day of Week and Severity (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-12 Table 6-12: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Hour of Day and Severity (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-13 Table 6-13: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-77 at I-485 (South) Bottleneck ..... 6-15 Table 6-14: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-85 at I-485 (West) Bottleneck ...... 6-17 Table 6-15: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-77 near Lake Norman Bottleneck . 6-19 Table 6-16: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-77 at I-85 Bottleneck ...... 6-20 Table 6-17: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-77 at I-277/US Hwy 74 Bottleneck6-23 Table 6-18: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—US 74 at US 601 Bottleneck ...... 6-25 Table 6-19: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—US 29 Bottleneck ...... 6-26 Table 6-20: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—US 21 Bottleneck ...... 6-26 Table 6-21: Truck Parking Utilization (2015) ...... 6-29 Table 6-22: NHS Intermodal Connectors ...... 6-31 Table 6-23: Regional Railroad Ownership ...... 6-33 Table 6-24: Governor’s 25-Year Vision and the State Rail Plan ...... 6-44 Table 7-1: Modal Comparison of Tonnages (2007 to 2012) ...... 7-3 Table 7-2: Modal Comparison of Values (2007 to 2012) ...... 7-4 Table 7-3: Top Commodities in Value by Mode (2007 to 2012) ...... 7-7 Table 7-4: Top Commodities in Tonnage by Mode (2007 to 2012) ...... 7-8 Table 7-5: Top Declining Commodities (2007 to 2012) ...... 7-9 Table 7-6: Top Growing Commodities (2007 to 2012) ...... 7-9 Table 9-1: National Freight Strategic Plan – Performance Improvement ...... 9-1
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN iv
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Table of Contents
Table 9-2: National Freight Strategic Plan – Community Impact Mitigation ...... 9-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Freight Plan Study Area ...... 1-2 Figure 2-1: Freight Plan Area Planning Partners ...... 2-1 Figure 2-2: CRTPO Planning Area Freight, Rail and Intermodal Freight Facilities...... 2-4 Figure 2-3: CRTPO Planning Area Truck Volumes (2010) ...... 2-7 Figure 2-4: Charlotte Railroad Improvement & Safety Program Projects ...... 2-9 Figure 2-5: GCLMPO Daily Truck Volumes (2010) ...... 2-12 Figure 2-6: RFATS Study Area Highway Freight Traffic Volumes (2013) ...... 2-15 Figure 2-7: Railroads in the RFATS Study Area ...... 2-17 Figure 5-1: Regional Population (2010 and 2014) ...... 5-6 Figure 5-2: Regional Employment (2012 and 2013) ...... 5-7 Figure 5-3: Regional Unemployment Rate (2006 to 2016) ...... 5-8 Figure 5-4: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Cargo Volumes (2013 through 2015) ...... 5-15 Figure 6-1: Greater Charlotte Region’s Roadway Network ...... 6-1 Figure 6-2: National Highway Freight Network ...... 6-2 Figure 6-3: Charlotte Regional National Highway Freight Network ...... 6-3 Figure 6-4: Truck AADT (2012) ...... 6-4 Figure 6-5: Functionally Obsolete & Structurally Deficient Bridges (2014) ...... 6-6 Figure 6-6: Commercial Vehicle Crash Incidents by Type (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-7 Figure 6-7: Commercial Vehicle Crash Hotspots (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-8 Figure 6-8: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Month (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-12 Figure 6-9: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Day of Week (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-13 Figure 6-10: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Hour of Day (2009 through 2013) ...... 6-14 Figure 6-11: Charlotte Regional Truck Bottlenecks ...... 6-15 Figure 6-12: I-485 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-16 Figure 6-13: I-485 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-16 Figure 6-14: I-77 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-17 Figure 6-15: I-77 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-17 Figure 6-16: I-85 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-18 Figure 6-17: I-85 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-18 Figure 6-18: I-485 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-19 Figure 6-19: I-485 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-19 Figure 6-20: I-77 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-20 Figure 6-21: I-77 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-20 Figure 6-22: I-77 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-21 Figure 6-23: I-77 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-21 Figure 6-24: I-85 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-22 Figure 6-25: I-85 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-22 Figure 6-26: I-77 North Weekday Average Speed per Hour ...... 6-23
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN v
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Table of Contents
Figure 6-27: I-77 South Weekday Average Speed per Hour ...... 6-24 Figure 6-28: I-277 North Weekday Average Speed per Hour ...... 6-24 Figure 6-29: I-277 South Weekday Average Speed per Hour ...... 6-24 Figure 6-30: US 74 Weekday Average Speed per Hour ...... 6-25 Figure 6-31: US 74 at US 601 Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-25 Figure 6-32: US 29 Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-26 Figure 6-33: US 21 Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour ...... 6-27 Figure 6-34: Greater Charlotte Region’s Truck Parking Facilities (2015) ...... 6-29 Figure 6-35: Greater Charlotte Region’s Truck Stops Utilization (2015) ...... 6-31 Figure 6-36: Greater Charlotte Region’s Intermodal Facilities ...... 6-32 Figure 6-37: Greater Charlotte Region’s Rail Network ...... 6-34 Figure 6-38: Regional Class I Rail Freight Volumes (2014) ...... 6-37 Figure 6-39: North Carolina Rail Bottlenecks...... 6-38 Figure 6-40: North Carolina Freight Capacity Improvement Projects ...... 6-39 Figure 6-41: Piedmont Improvement Program Projects ...... 6-40 Figure 6-42: Greater Charlotte Region’s At-Grade Rail Crossings ...... 6-42 Figure 6-43: Greater Charlotte’s Region At-Grade Rail Crossing Collisions (2012 through 2014) ..... 6-43 Figure 6-44: Greater Charlotte Region’s STRACNET Map ...... 6-44 Figure 6-45: Greater Charlotte Region’s Public Airports ...... 6-46 Figure 7-1: Summary Freight Flows (2012) ...... 7-2 Figure 7-2: Tonnage Comparison (2007 to 2012) ...... 7-2 Figure 7-3: Top Commodities with Flow Type Detail (2012) ...... 7-5 Figure 7-4: Top Commodities with Mode Detail (2012) ...... 7-6 Figure 7-5: Top Origins of Shipments to Charlotte Region (Thousands of Tons) (2012) ...... 7-10 Figure 7-6: Top Destination of Shipments from Charlotte Region (Thousands of Tons) (2012) ...... 7-11 Figure 7-7: Top Origins of Shipments to Charlotte Region (Millions of Dollars) (2012) ...... 7-12 Figure 7-8: Top Destination of Shipments from Charlotte Region (Millions of Dollars) (2012) ...... 7-12 Figure 8-1: FAST Freight Specific Sections ...... 8-9 Figure 8-2: NCDOT Transportation Funding Sources ...... 8-14 Figure 8-3: NCDOT Transportation Funding Allocation (FY15-16) ...... 8-15
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN vi
1. INTRODUCTION
The Greater Charlotte Regional Freight Mobility Plan (Freight Plan) development is a regional planning effort focused on freight transportation infrastructure conducted by the Centralina Council of Governments (CCOG) in cooperation with regional partners of the 14-county Greater Charlotte Bi- State Region. As the movement of goods transcends jurisdictional boundaries, freight-related decisions can have wide-ranging impacts within and outside of the region. It is essential that the Freight Plan be consistent with other regional efforts so that freight priorities complement, or at least do not conflict with, other important initiatives.
The Freight Plan is consistent with North Carolina and South Carolina statewide transportation planning studies as well as regional and local jurisdiction transportation planning initiatives. The Freight Plan is being developed with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) legislation in 2012 and more recent FAST Act legislation in 2015 in mind to ensure the analysis and recommendations are consistent with federal legislative guidance.
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This existing conditions report is the starting point for understanding what actions and investments will help meet the Greater Charlotte Region’s freight related economic competitiveness goals and objectives. This report identifies, inventories, and assesses the current condition and performance of the freight transportation system in addition to other relevant background data and information.
In assessing existing conditions, previous goods movement documents and other plans were reviewed to assess the implications for the freight plan development. Some of these are related to the support of economic development and funding initiatives which are important components of any regional freight plan. The analysis includes the following:
• National/regional trends and issues that affect freight demand • Description of the regional freight transportation system • Major freight generators • Connectivity/intermodal issues • Freight safety • Truck layover parking and overnight stay accommodations • Analysis and synthesis of commodity flow data • Identification of bottlenecks that cause delay and unreliability
1.2 REGIONAL COLLABORATION The Freight Plan is a collaboration of 14 counties of the Greater Charlotte Region including four counties in South Carolina and 10 counties in North Carolina (Figure 1-1). The Freight Plan will document the freight transportation system within these counties as well identify issues, needs, and priorities for improvement.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 1-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Introduction
Figure 1-1: Freight Plan Study Area
Source: CDM Smith
The project is a multi-jurisdiction public-private collaboration effort lead by CCOG in partnership with the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Rural Planning Organization (RPO), Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), local governments, economic development commissions, and private rail and trucking companies, logistics and distribution firms. The Freight Plan will be informed by three committees: a Coordinating Committee, a Steering Committee and a Freight Advisory Committee.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 1-2
2. REGIONAL FREIGHT PLANNING
Regional Plans were reviewed from the following organizations to build on and incorporate their relevant freight planning components.
• Cabarrus-Rowan MPO (CRMPO) [Cabarrus County and Rowan County] • Charlotte Region Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO) [Iredell, Mecklenburg, and a portion of Union Counties] • Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO (GCLMPO) [Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln Counties] • Rocky River RPO [Stanly, Anson, and portion of Union Counties] • Catawba Regional Council of Governments [Chester, Lancaster, Union, and York Counties] Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) [York and Lancaster Counties, SC]
Figure 2-1 illustrates the area planning partners.
Figure 2-1: Freight Plan Area Planning Partners
Source: CDM Smith
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
2.1 CABARRUS-ROWAN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION The Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO) covers Cabarrus and Rowan Counties in North Carolina. A review of the CRMPO’s Draft 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) from March 2014 found the following freight-related references.
2.1.1 TRUCK FREIGHT The primary truck and freight routes in Cabarrus County are NC 49 east, NC 73 east and west, NC 3, and I-85. Currently, NC 49 is under construction for improvements west of the Town of Harrisburg and east of the Town of Mount Pleasant. This project was identified as an important improvement by the trucking industry and NCDOT Division 10.
In Rowan County, US 70 west, I-85, NC 150 west, and US 52 east are primary truck and freight routes. Currently, only US 70 has received improvements west of the Town of Cleveland. An important part of freight movement in Rowan County is the rail yard in the City of Charlotte. Trucking companies provide shipments to the rail yard that are distributed by train to the rest of the continental US.
2.1.2 RAIL FREIGHT The Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS) is the major Class I rail line serving the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO. NS operates more than 300 trains through the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO each week, supporting several trucking firms in the region which offer supporting services. In addition, two short line routes also traverse the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO region. The Aberdeen, Carolina and Western Railroad leases a route from Charlotte to Raleigh via Midland in southeastern Cabarrus County. The other route connects Charlotte and Greensboro via Barber Junction in northwestern Rowan County.
2.2 CHARLOTTE REGION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION The Charlotte Region Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO) Planning area covers Iredell, Mecklenburg, and Union Counties in North Carolina. The CRTPO completed its MTP in April 2014. Freight-related information from the MTP is described below.
2.2.1 FREIGHT RELATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The CRTPO has identified two goals and supporting objectives that support freight transportation in the region. They include:
1. Goal: Support economic competitiveness by making investment decisions for transportation modes that make the most efficient use of limited public resources, as well as by pursuing sustainable funding possibilities.
Objective: Develop a transportation system supporting Charlotte’s position as a major distribution center, improving and maintaining access for freight to other markets via a network of highways, railroads and airports.
2. Goal: Maximize travel and transportation opportunities for the movement of people and goods.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-2
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
• Objective: Promote a freight transportation system that supports the movement of goods. • Objective: Develop regionally significant streets and highways in a manner which manages congestion and minimizes travel times and distances. • Objective: Promote the integration of, or coordination among, different transportation modes by supporting intermodal terminals that facilitate the movement of goods. • Objective: Reserve designated rail and transit corridors for future needs, and identify opportunities to share rail corridors with transit and active transportation. • Objective: Encourage regional efforts to maximize the region’s competitiveness in freight and logistics. • Objective: Support initiatives at international and regional airports that increase the attractiveness of the airport as a major passenger and cargo facility. • Objective: Establish measures to enhance the inter-city, inter-regional and intra-regional capacities of major transportation corridors. • Objective: Encourage land use planning that supports and promotes the movement of freight by railroad.
2.2.2 CURRENT FREIGHT STATISTICS FOR CHARLOTTE REGION The CRTPO MTP also summarizes some freight-relevant facts. The MTP references Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, which highlights the following freight statistics.
• The Charlotte Region is the largest industrial hub in the Southeast U.S. and 6th largest wholesale center nationwide • There are two major Class I railroads (NS and CSXT) which provide critical rail access to the rest of the U.S. • 329 trucking companies are located in Charlotte, the 11th most of any region in the U.S. • 57 percent of Fortune 500 companies have facilities in the area
Figure 2-2 illustrates the CRTPO region’s identified freight, rail, and intermodal freight facilities.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-3
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
Figure 2-2: CRTPO Planning Area Freight, Rail and Intermodal Freight Facilities
Source: CRTPO 2040 MTP, April 2014
TRUCK FREIGHT The most important truck routes within the CRTPO region are found on the NCDOT’s Statewide Mobility category of roadways, which include the routes with the highest truck volumes. Several sections of truck routes in the CRTPO region score among the most congested in North Carolina, specifically:
• I-485 in southern Mecklenburg County • I-77 through Mecklenburg County and southern Iredell County • US 74 in Mecklenburg and Union Counties.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-4
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
The locations of I-77 and I-485 near Pineville, I-77 near Lake Norman, and I-85 at I-485 near the Charlotte-Douglas Airport have been identified as three of the nation’s top 200 most congested locations. Each carry significant truck volumes and have high congestion scores from the NCDOT’s project evaluation process. In the CRTPO’s 2040 fiscally constrained project list, each of these facilities is targeted for upcoming capital improvements in the form of added lanes, managed lanes, upgrade to expressway standards, and constructing bypasses.
TRUCK ROUTES Commercial trucks traveling through the City of Charlotte must comply with the City’s truck ordinance. Commercial vehicles must remain on designated truck routes until a point closest to their destination. Commercial vehicles are prohibited from using residential streets or any street posted “no trucks” unless taking on or discharging goods, or it is the only street that accesses a destination. The truck routes in the city include:
• Albemarle Road: between Independence Boulevard and Eastern City Limits/Wilgrove-Mint Hill Road • Atando Avenue: between North Tryon Street and I-77 • Belhaven Boulevard: between Brookshire Blvd. and Northwestern City Limits/Mt. Holly- Huntersville Road • Berryhill Road: between Freedom Drive and Thrift Road • Billy Graham Parkway: between Interstate 85 and Woodlawn Road (US 521) • North Brevard Street: between Eleventh Street and North Davidson Street • Brookshire Boulevard: between Brookshire Freeway and Northwestern City Limits • Camden Road: between South Tryon Street and West Boulevard • Caswell Road: between East Fourth Street and Providence Road • Chesapeake Drive: between Auten Road and Hoskins Road • South Clarkson Street: between Morehead Street and I-77 • Craighead Road: between North Davidson Street and North Tryon Street • Dalton Avenue: between North Tryon Street and Statesville Avenue • North Davidson Street: between East Craighead Road and East Sugar Creek Road • East Boulevard: between Camden Road and South Boulevard • Eleventh Street: between McDowell Street and Graham Street • West Fifth Street: between West Sixth Street and Cedar Street • Fourth Street: between Caswell Road and McDowell Street • Freedom Drive: between I-77 and Mount Holly Road • Graham Street: between West Sugar Creek Road and Mint Street • Griffith Street: between New Bern Street and South Tryon Street • Hoskins Road: between Brookshire Boulevard and Rozzelles Ferry Road • Hovis Road: between Brookshire Boulevard and Tar Heel Road • Independence Boulevard: between Kenilworth Avenue/I-277 and Eastern City Limits • Interstates 77, 85, 277, and 485 • Jordan Place: between North Brevard Street and Matheson Avenue
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-5
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
• Lawton Road: between Rozzelles Ferry Road and Chesapeake Drive • Louise Avenue: between Independence Boulevard and Tenth Street • McDowell Street: between Tenth Street and Morehead Street • South Mint Street: between Stonewall Street and Summit Avenue • Morehead Street: between Wilkinson Boulevard and McDowell Street • Mount Holly Road: between Freedom Drive and Northwest City Limits • Nations Ford Road: between South Tryon Street and East Arrowood Road • New Bern Street: between South Boulevard and Griffith Street • Old Pineville Road: between Woodlawn Road and East Arrowood Road • Old Statesville Road: between Sunset Road and Northern City Limits • Pineville-Matthews Road: between Western and Eastern City Limits (NC 51) • Providence Road: between Third Street and McKee Road • Providence Road: between Allison Lane and Southern City Limits • Remount Road: between Wilkinson Boulevard and South Blvd. • Rozzelles Ferry Road: between Beatties Ford Road and Mount Holly Road • Sixteenth Street: between North Brevard Street and North Tryon Street • West Sixth Street: between North Graham Street and West Fifth Street • South Boulevard: between Morehead Street and Southern City Limits • Statesville Avenue: between North Graham Street and Northern City Limits • Sugar Creek Road: between North Tryon Street and North Davidson Street • Summit Avenue: between South Clarkson Street and South Tryon Street • Tenth Street: between Louise Avenue and McDowell Street • Third Street: between McDowell Street and Providence Road • Thrift Road: between Freedom Drive and Tuckaseegee Road • Twenty-Fourth Street: between North Graham Street and North Tryon Street • West Trade Street: between Graham Street and Rozzelles Ferry Road • North Tryon Street: between Eleventh Street and Northern City Limits • South Tryon Street: between Morehead Street and Southern City Limits • Tuckaseegee Road: between West Trade Street and Berryhill Road • Tremont Avenue: between South Boulevard and South Tryon Street • University City Boulevard: between North Tryon Street and Northeastern City Limits • West Boulevard: between Camden Road and Western City Limits • Wilkinson Boulevard: between Interstate 77 and Western City Limits • Woodlawn Road: between South Tryon Street and South Boulevard • Woodward Avenue: between North Graham Street and Statesville Avenue • Yancey Road: between Old Pineville Road and South Tryon Street
Figure 2-3 illustrates the daily truck volumes for the CRTPO region in 2010. Interstates carry the largest number of trucks throughout the region, particularly I-85.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-6
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
Figure 2-3: CRTPO Planning Area Truck Volumes (2010)
Source: CRTPO 2040 MTP, April 2014 AIR CARGO According to the North Carolina 2008 Statewide Logistics Plan, as of 2006, the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport carried approximately 42 percent of North Carolina’s 336 million pounds of air cargo carried each year.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-7
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
RAIL FREIGHT According to the NCDOT Rail Division, in 2013 NS and CSXT combined provided 128 train trips per day to the 14-county Charlotte Region. NS runs 78 trains a day on the line roughly paralleling I-85 from both the east and west. CSXT operates 39 train trips per day along the US 74 corridor. North-South trips roughly paralleling I-77 and east-west along NC 24-27 include 13 trips per day.
There are three minor rail facilities connecting the CRTPO region to the State:
• The state-owned North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) which extends from Charlotte to Morehead City, with portions leased by NS • The rail line leased by Aberdeen, Carolina, and Western Railroad from Raleigh to Charlotte via Sanford • The rail line connecting Charlotte to Greensboro
In addition, the Alexander Railroad provides regional service between Iredell and Catawba Counties. The Lancaster and Chester (L&C) railroad is located at the southern end of the Charlotte Region and connects to the NS and CSXT lines.
INTERMODAL FACILITIES With five freight terminals, the CRTPO area contains over a quarter of all freight intermodal terminals in North Carolina. These terminals include:
• The Charlotte-Douglas International Airport • The Norfolk Southern Intermodal Freight Terminal • The CSXT Intermodal Freight Terminal • The North Carolina State Ports Authority • The Pipeline Tank Farms (Paw Creek, Mecklenburg County)
2.2.3 STATEWIDE FREIGHT PLANNING INITIATIVES THAT AFFECT THE CRTPO REGION The CRTPO MTP summarizes the relevant statewide planning initiatives. A scan of the MTP provides the following freight relevant information for the region.
SEVEN PORTALS STUDY The 2011 Seven Portals Study investigated potential “logistics villages” within each of the seven economic development regions across North Carolina. The term “logistics villages” refers to freight- oriented business parks and intermodal centers. The Study provided recommendations for infrastructure and policy improvements to help increase economic activity and transportation efficiency at these sites, such as access between intermodal and private distribution centers, rest and parking areas for drivers, and fixing chokepoints and bottlenecks. The sites identified as potential logistics villages in the CRTPO region include:
• Mecklenburg County: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, Steele Creek-Arrowood- Westinghouse Industrial Center, and Dixie-Berryhill Area • Union County: Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport and Legacy Village
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-8
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
• Iredell County: Statesville Regional Airport
PIEDMONT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM In January 2010, North Carolina received $545 million through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus program to improve the NCRR corridor between Charlotte and the Raleigh area, to be completed by September 2017. This project includes 12 miles of new track, 15 new grade separations, and the replacement of 51 public and private crossings. $110 million project will significantly increase capacity and reliability through the area.
CHARLOTTE RAILROAD IMPROVEMENT AND SAFETY PROGRAM The Charlotte Railroad Improvement and Safety Program (CRISP) is a partnership among freight and transit providers and state and local agencies that are involved with freight and passenger rail transportation planning and implementation. Some of the objectives of CRISP include modernizing existing track infrastructure, improving safety and efficiency, and improving the environment and local quality of life.
Figure 2-4: Charlotte Railroad Improvement & Safety Program Projects
Source: CRTPO 2040 MTP, April 2014
2008 NORTH CAROLINA STATEWIDE LOGISTICS PLAN The Statewide Logistics Plan identified recommendations at a statewide level as well as those that are specific to the CRTPO region. These include the following:
• Actively participate in future discussions with the NCDOT to develop MAP-21 compliant performance metrics for freight movement in North Carolina that: . Provides incentives to projects improving travel time reliability
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-9
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
. Decreases on-road emissions from freight movement . Develops a reliable network with flexible routing options . Improves access to freight-intensive land uses • Initiate data collection and analysis programs to assess the effectiveness of completed projects, consistent with MAP-21 regulations and metrics as approved by the USDOT, the NCDOT, and the CRTPO. • Participate in CONNECT and other regional and statewide initiatives to determine support and direction for a freight mobility plan for the region. If recommended through these initiatives, the plan should take a broad approach to addressing issues identified including: . Inter-agency coordination . Transportation . Land use . Economic development . Environment and energy • Retain freight-oriented variables in the CRTPO MTP and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project ranking processes and Congestion Management Process (CMP) to adequately consider important freight-related variables, such as: . Land access . Travel time reliability . Congestion . Inter-model connections . Safety • Implement the Seven Portals Study recommendations for “logistics villages” and general freight-oriented development, including: . Improved access roads to freight facilities, i.e. “the last mile” . Increased rest and parking areas for trucks and their drivers . Addressing choke points and bottlenecks in the transportation system
2.3 GASTON-CLEVELAND-LINCOLN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION The Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization (GCLMPO) planning area covers Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln Counties in North Carolina. The GCLMPO has identified freight-related goals, objectives, and modal existing conditions within its 2040 MTP and are summarized below.
2.3.1 GCLMPO 2040 MTP FREIGHT-RELATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The GCLMPO has identified two goals and supporting objectives that address freight transportation in the region. In addition, the MTP identifies one freight-related policy. These include.
• Goals . Provide a safe, comprehensive, and efficient transportation system that allows the movement of goods and people into, through, and out of each jurisdiction within Gaston, Cleveland and Lincoln Counties. . Satisfy MAP-21 requirements by including freight planning in the 2040 GCLMPO MTP.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-10
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
• Objectives . Support and promote a freight transportation system which supports the movement of goods. . Develop a transportation system supporting Charlotte’s position as a major distribution center, improving and maintaining access for freight to other markets via a network of highways, railroads and airways. . Develop streets and highways that are accessible to and compatible with multiple modes of transportation. . Facilitate coordination among transportation modes through the establishment of intermodal facilities. . Identify opportunities to share rail corridors with transit. . Support expansion opportunities at Charlotte-/Douglas International Airport that increase the attractiveness of the airport as a major cargo facility. . Designate safe routes, with minimal urban exposure, for the transport of hazardous materials. . Designate truck routes that minimize exposure to neighborhoods and to historic and cultural resources. . Identify and build high-impact projects that connect transportation modes seamlessly so that people and freight can move efficiently around and through the region. . Determine the freight impact on existing infrastructure. . Assess the community’s perception of freight. . Identify existing transportation projects with freight impact. . Create a freight planning strategy. . Promote competitive freight options by improving existing transportation facilities in strategic corridors.
• Policy: The GCLMPO will research, implement, and enforce laws and tools to improve and enhance the Freight and Goods movement into and out of the area.
2.3.2 TRUCKING The most important freight-related roads within the GCLMPO metropolitan planning area are found on the NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridor network, specifically I-85 through Gaston County, US 74 through Cleveland County, and the US 321 and I-85 interchange. Each carries significant truck volumes and has high congestion scores from NCDOT’s project prioritization process. Each of these corridors is also targeted for upcoming capital improvements in the form of widenings, geometric improvements, and constructing bypasses in GCLMPO’s 2040 fiscally-constrained project list.
Recently the truck weigh station near Belmont was relocated to near Bessemer City. This project is anticipated to reduce delay and crashes near Belmont due to frequent on and off movements by trucks in a congested section of I-85.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-11
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
Figure 2-5 illustrates the 2010 daily truck volumes for the GCLMPO metropolitan planning area. I-85 carries the bulk of the truck traffic within the region.
Figure 2-5: GCLMPO Daily Truck Volumes (2010)
Source: GCLMPO 2040 MTP
2.3.3 FREIGHT RAIL The NS and CSXT are the two major rail lines serving the region that link it to the rest of the nation. According to information from the NCDOT Rail Division (2013), NS and CSXT together operated 128 train trips per day in the region, with NS running 78 trains a day along the I-85 corridor. CSXT operates 39 train trips per day along the US 74 corridor and 13 trips per day roughly paralleling I-77 and east west along NC 24-27.
2.3.4 AVIATION The Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is less than two miles east of the GCLMPO metropolitan planning area, adjacent to a Foreign Trade Zone, and immediately accessible to major interstates. The Charlotte Air Cargo Center consists of approximately 500,000 sq. ft. of facilities and over 50 acres of aircraft ramp space. The airport’s three runways can accommodate all types of aircraft and measure 10,000 feet, 8,845 feet, and 7,500 feet. To support air cargo operations, Charlotte Douglas has a full complement of international service support organizations including U.S. Customs, U.S. Department of Immigration and Naturalization and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Charlotte Air Cargo Center has more than 70 freight forwarders, custom house brokers and professional international service providers.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-12
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
2.3.5 FREIGHT-RELATED PROJECTS There are two freight specific projects identified in the GCLMPO MTP. They include:
• Construct New Weigh Station along I-85 (2015 Horizon YR Cost $12,000,000) • Gastonia CCTV Cameras. Install 6 CCTV cameras to the existing computerized traffic signal system on I-85 at NC 7 (Ozark Avenue); US 29/US 74 at Franklin Square II; NC 279 (New Hope Road) at Ozark Avenue; US 321 (Chester Street) at Tulip Drive/Bulb Ave; NC 274 (Bessemer City Road) at NC 275 (Dallas/Bessemer City Road); and NC 274 (Union Road) at SR 1255 (Hudson Boulevard) [2015 Horizon YR Cost $123,000]
2.4 ROCKY RIVER REGIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION The Rocky River Regional Planning Organization (RPO) planning area covers the Anson, Stanly, and Union Counties and their municipalities in North Carolina. Freight-related information found in the Stanly and Anson County Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTP) is described below.
2.4.1 STANLY COUNTY (COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, 2012) HIGHWAY FREIGHT-RELATED PROJECT NEED The CTP identifies the proposed improvements on US 74 from Old Prison Camp Rd. (SR 1249) through Wadesboro to east of Firetower Rd. (SR 1731).
FREIGHT RAIL There are currently two active rail lines in the Stanly County planning area. NS operates two to three freight trains per day with no passenger service and has stopped rail service on the spur known as the WF-line. Aberdeen Carolina and Western (ACWR) is a short line railroad which operates on track leased from Norfolk Southern Railway. The ACWR NS-line operates two to three freight trains per day with no passenger service. There are no planned rail improvements within the county.
2.4.2 ANSON COUNTY (COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, 2012) FREIGHT RAIL The two direct rail carriers that serve Anson County are Winston-Salem Southbound and CSXT. The Winston-Salem Southbound Railway Co. operates from Winston-Salem through Lexington and Albemarle to Wadesboro, serving industries in the central Piedmont counties of Forsyth, Davidson, Stanly, and Anson. CSXT operates from Wilmington through Lumberton and Rockingham to Wadesboro and continues on to South Carolina. There are no planned rail improvements within the county.
2.5 ROCK HILL-FORT MILL AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY The Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) planning area covers eastern York County as well as the panhandle of Lancaster County in South Carolina. Freight-related information from the RFATS 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is described below.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-13
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
In general, the LRTP acknowledges that highway and rail freight are important and complementary parts of the freight transportation system in the RFATS region. It also recognizes that access to Charlotte, its intermodal terminals, and destinations beyond Charlotte are important to the study area, and highway freight will be impacted by increased congestion along primary routes towards Charlotte. Freight volumes, specifically rail, are projected to increase at a slow, but steady rate and primarily serve local freight customers, but it remains unclear what the impacts of improvements outside the RFATS study will have on freight movements
2.5.1 RFATS 2035 LRTP FREIGHT-RELATED HIGHWAY SYSTEM GOAL There is one freight-related goal within the RFATS 2035 LRTP.
• Goal: Encourage opportunities to engage freight providers in operational and transportation system upgrade planning.
2.5.2 RFATS 2035 LRTP FREIGHT ELEMENT SUMMARY The RFATS Study Area has strong highway and rail connections for freight, including a major north- south interstate connecting Charlotte and Columbia and main lines of two Class I railroads. These connections serve a wide range of industries including distribution centers and automobile component manufacturers. In addition, the northern edge of the RFATS Study Area includes the light- industrial region along I-77 and I-485 near Pineville. The area’s relationship to the greater Charlotte region is a key factor influencing the demand and location of freight supportive industries and facilities.
HIGHWAY FREIGHT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS IN RFATS STUDY AREA As noted above, the RFATS Study Area looks strongly to Charlotte for highway access northward as well as access to the intermodal facilities in Charlotte. The existing and forecasted congestion on I-77 represents a potential threat to the RFATS Study Area’s competitiveness. Forecasted conditions on the main routes southward from the RFATS Study Area are more satisfactory.
Two of the SCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors serve the RFATS Study Area. The Low Country to York Corridor connects Charlotte and the RFATS Study Area with Columbia and Savannah. The Olde English – Olde 96 Corridor connects Charlotte and the RFATS Study Area with north-east Georgia.
The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) data shows significant truck movements along the major highway corridors of I-77, US-21, SC-72, SC-5, and SC-161 within the RFATS Study Area. The interstate highway is especially important as a freight conduit, as it connects the RFATS Study Area to the major regional urban areas in Charlotte and Columbia as well as to Charleston, the major port in the state. The arterial roadways move freight within the RFATS Study Area as well as to other urban areas of the state and will continue to play an important role in the movement of freight traffic in the future. Figure 2-6 illustrates the daily truck volumes for 2013 and shows the importance of I-77 for trucks.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-14
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
Figure 2-6: RFATS Study Area Highway Freight Traffic Volumes (2013)
Source: RFATS 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
RAIL FREIGHT TRENDS AND CONDITIONS IN RFATS STUDY AREA Figure 2-7 shows the railroads in the RFATS Study Area. These include routes owned by both NS and CSXT, the two major railroads in the eastern US, as well as the Lancaster and Chester (L & C) Railroad. The NS secondary main line from Charlotte to Chester and Columbia (known as the ‘R’ line, part of NS Piedmont Division) passes through Fort Mill and Rock Hill, serving a number of industrial customers and with a small switching yard at Rock Hill. The SCDOT Rail Right-Of-Way Inventory identified this as
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-15
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning a potentially important line because it follows the SC-72 highway corridor, but its future appears to be secure. Although a single-track line, it has automatic block signaling and a relatively high density of traffic. Passing sidings exist at the Rock Hill yard and in Fort Mill.
The CSXT line from Monroe (NC) to Chester passes through Catawba, as part of CSXT’s mainline axis from Hamlet (NC) to Atlanta and New Orleans. This line has centralized traffic control and a high traffic density, and its future also appears secure. NS also operates a local line (the ‘SB’ line) that connects with the main ‘R’ line at Rock Hill, extending west to Tirzah and east to meet the CSXT line at Catawba. Also serving Catawba is the independent Lancaster and Chester Railroad (L&C), a short line (minor railroad).
Although the future of the two main lines through the RFATS Study Area appears secure, the NS and L&C lines are, like any local routes, dependent on the presence of small numbers of individual customers, and changes in the industrial base can therefore easily affect those lines.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-16
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
Figure 2-7: Railroads in the RFATS Study Area
Source: RFATS 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-17
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Regional Freight Planning
2.5.3 RFATS 2035 LRTP FREIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS There are two freight recommendations within the LRTP. The first explains that RFATS should consider undertaking a comprehensive Freight Study that considers the needs of freight shippers and receivers, as well as how the RFATS Study Area may benefit from Charlotte’s existing and planned intermodal facilities. The study should also consider the congestion impacts of freight and address the issues identified by stakeholders during outreach that occurred in 2012 and investigate alternate funding options, including public-private partnerships.
The second is that RFATS should review existing policies and practices on the preservation of rail- served industrial sites and preservation of industrial railroad corridors.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2-18
3. FREIGHT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Coordinated strategic goals, objectives, and performance measures provide the framework for implementing the Freight Plan in a consistent way in coordination with state, regional, and local planning efforts.
The Greater Charlotte Regional Freight Mobility Plan goals were established after reviewing the National Freight Policy goals, NCDOT Long Range Transportation Plan goals, SCDOT Long Range Transportation Plan goals, regional MPO plan goals, and county transportation plans. A set of objectives were developed to articulate the Freight Plan goals, help define freight transportation system needs, and identify the desired future performance of the freight network.
Performance measures found in Appendix C correlate to the goals and objectives. These will be formulated to guide future investment decisions and can also be used to assess the progress of the Freight Plan’s implementation. A guiding principal in developing measures is that they utilize existing performance data and leverage current (or planned) data collection activities.
3.1 GOAL 1: ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY Support economic competitiveness by making investment decisions for transportation modes that make the most efficient use of resources, as well as by pursuing sustainable funding possibilities.
3.1.1 OBJECTIVES • Develop, integrate, and support a freight transportation system supporting the region’s position as a major freight hub via a network of highways, railroads and airports • Encourage regional efforts to maximize the region’s competitiveness in freight and logistics • Formulate a relationship between the private and public sectors to leverage available public and private revenue resources
3.2 GOAL 2: SAFETY AND SECURITY Improve the safety and security of the freight transportation system.
3.2.1 OBJECTIVES • Assist the regional emergency management agencies to be better prepared in the event of crashes on the freight system, and in response to hazardous material incidents • Expand the use of technology to increase regional freight safety and security • Reduce the number of high crash locations that involve trucks or at rail grade crossings
3.3 GOAL 3: INFRASTRUCTURE PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE Improve the state of good repair of the freight transportation system.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 3-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Goals and Objectives
3.3.1 OBJECTIVE • Maintain regionally significant streets and highways to a state of good repair to minimize truck travel times and cargo damage
3.4 GOAL 4: ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP Reduce adverse environmental and community impacts of the freight transportation system.
3.4.1 OBJECTIVES • Encourage land use planning that supports and promotes the efficient movement of freight • Reduce the emissions resulting from freight congestion and excessive vehicle/train idling
3.5 GOAL 5: CONGESTION AND RELIABILITY Reduce travel times and increase the reliability of the freight transportation system.
3.5.1 OBJECTIVES • Reduces the frequency of recurring and non-recurring congestion on the freight system
3.6 GOAL 6: PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Develop methods to track and improve performance and accountability of the operations and maintenance of the freight transportation system.
3.6.1 OBJECTIVES • Decrease the costs of freight movement by reducing empty backhaul movements • Improve freight system operations and information sharing for decision making through improvements in technology • Increase freight knowledge and expertise by planners and elected officials throughout the region • Implement a performance-based tracking process to determine how well the freight system is functioning relative to freight investments
3.7 GOAL 7: REGIONAL COORDINATION Improve coordination among regional agencies responsible for freight transportation planning and implementation. Engage private sector freight stakeholders to inform freight transportation planning and decision making.
3.7.1 OBJECTIVES • Improve coordination among regional agencies responsible for freight transportation planning and implementation • Engage private sector freight stakeholders to inform freight transportation planning and decision making
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 3-2
4. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
The stakeholder outreach approach focuses on developing relationships with private sector freight industries as well as representatives of public sector agencies engaged in transportation related activities that support the freight transportation network. The development of the Freight Plan is informed by three committees: a Coordinating Committee, a Steering Committee, and an Advisory Committee. The Coordinating Committee and Steering Committee met regularly throughout the development of the Freight Plan. A Freight Advisory Committee will also be established during the development of the Freight Plan. In addition to the committees, a series of surveys and interviews with freight representatives also informed the issues identification, needs, and project prioritization of the Freight Plan. The methods of outreach are briefly summarized below. The results of the outreach will be documented in later Technical Memoranda.
4.1 COORDINATING COMMITTEE The Coordinating Committee is responsible for overseeing the overall technical aspects of the Freight Plan including the review and approval of content, layout, recommendations, and implementation. Membership of the Coordinating Committee includes staff from the regional transportation planning organizations, state departments of transportation, and the FHWA:
• Regional Transportation Planning Organizations: . Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO) . Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization (GCLMPO) . Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO) . Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) . Rocky River Rural Planning Organization (RRRPO) . Catawba Regional Council of Governments (CRCOG) • State Departments of Transportation . NC Department of Transportation . SC Department of Transportation • Federal Highway Administration, NC Division and SC Division
4.2 STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee is responsible for the policy level elements of the Plan. They will serve as advisors to the Coordinating Committee and review their recommendations and findings. The Steering Committee is comprised of key regional experts in transportation and land use planning, economic development, logistics, and local government elected officials. Steering Committee members represent the following organizations (as of March 16, 2016).
• Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway • Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Company Commerce • Catawba Regional COG
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 4-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Stakeholder Outreach
• Charlotte Department of • Norfolk Southern Transportation • Rock Hill - Fort Mill Area • Centralina Council of Governments Transportation Study • Centralina Clean Fuels Coalition • Rocky River RPO • Charlotte Chamber of Commerce • Rowan County • Charlotte-Douglas International • Rowan County Chamber of Commerce Airport • South Carolina Department of • Charlotte Regional Partnership Transportation • Chester County Economic • South Piedmont Community College Development • Stanly County • City of Albemarle • Stanly County Economic Development • City of Belmont Commission • City of Monroe • Statesville Regional Airport • City of Mount Holly • Town of Davidson • City of Statesville • Town of Huntersville • City of Statesville • Town of Matthews • Cleveland County • Town of Midland • Cleveland County Economic • Town of Mooresville Development Partnership • Town of Mount Holly • Concord Regional Airport • Town of Stallings • CPCC Center for Logistics • Town of Wadesboro • Charlotte Regional Transportation • UNC Charlotte Planning Organization • CSX Transportation • Federal Highway Administration • Gaston County • Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO • Greater Gaston Development Commission • Lake Norman Transportation Commission • Lincoln County • Lincoln Economic Development Association • Mecklenburg County • Monroe-Union County Economic Development • Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation • NC State Ports Authority • North Carolina Department of Transportation
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 4-2
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Stakeholder Outreach
4.3 INTERVIEWS A series of stakeholder interviews as well as truck driver interviews are planned for the development of the Freight Plan. A sample list of private sector stakeholders is shown in Table 4-1. These interviews will solicit feedback from private sector freight stakeholders who represent a wide cross section of the freight industry. The preliminary list of stakeholders for potential interviews includes primarily manufacturing companies, including the largest regional manufacturers in the region (by employment), and also includes aerospace and other advanced manufacturers that are target industries and may have different freight needs than more traditional manufacturers. Those identified represent a diverse set of industrial categories and a thorough regional geographic representation.
Other than manufacturing, other industries are included such as retail that have a large dependence on transportation for distribution of their products, both brick and mortar stores and distribution centers, as well as e-commerce fulfillment centers. In addition, there are some representatives of the Energy sector, one of Charlotte’s largest economic categories.
Table 4-1: Sample Private Sector Stakeholders
Company Location Industry Sector Iredell County, NC Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy ASMO Statesville Equipment Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Dana Statesville Equipment NGK Ceramics USA Mooresville Mfg – Ceramics Kewaunee Scientific Corp Statesville Mfg – Laboratory, Technical products Bestco Mooresville Mfg – Healthcare products Lowe's Mooresville Retail – HQ Manheim Remarketing Statesville Retail – Automotive auctions Penske Racing South Mooresville Leisure & Hospitality Rowan County NC Performance Fibers Salisbury/Huntersville Mfg – Textiles General Electric Salisbury Mfg – Electrical Equipment Daimler Trucks / Cleveland Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Freightliner Equipment Magna Composites Salisbury Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy (Continental Structural Equipment Plastics) Shaver Wood Products Cleveland Mfg – Exporter of wood products Boral Bricks Spencer Mfg – Building Products - Brick Carolina Stalite Company Salisbury Mfg – Building Products - Aggregate Harmony Laboratories Kannapolis Mfg – Pharmaceutical and Medicine
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 4-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Stakeholder Outreach
Company Location Industry Sector Food Lion Salisbury Retail – Corporate offices Dillard's Department Store Salisbury Retail – Distribution Center Lincoln County NC Cataler North America Lincolnton Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Equipment The Timken Company Iron Station Mfg – Bearings Julius Blum Stanly Mfg – Hinges, runners, lifts Wireway/Husky Inc. Denver Mfg – Metal products G&W NC Laboratories Lincolnton Mfg – Pharmaceutical and Medicine RSI Home Products Lincolnton Mfg – Building Products UTC Fire & Security Lincolnton Mfg – Building and Industrial Systems Americas Miller Pipeline Denver Construction – Natural gas pipelines Cleveland County NC Rockwood Lithium Kings Mountain Battery grade lithium Curtiss-Wright Controls Shelby Mfg – Aerospace Ultra Machine Shelby Mfg – Defense/Aerospace PPG Industries Shelby Mfg – Fiber Optics Eaton Belmont Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Equipment Hanes Brands Kings Mountain Mfg – Apparel Solaris Kings Mountain Mfg – Plastic fabrication Pioneer Motor Bearing Kings Mountain Mfg – Bearings Southeastern Container Kings Mountain Mfg – Plastic bottles Firestone Fibers & Textiles Kings Mountain Mfg – Tire cord and materials Gaston County NC Daimler Trucks Gastonia Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Equipment Wix Filtration Products Gastonia Mfg – Automotive products Parkdale Mills Gastonia Mfg – Textiles Pharr Yarns McAdenville Mfg – Textiles American & Efird Mt Holly Mfg – Threads and Yarns Pennsylvania Steel Gastonia Mfg – Metal products Company Arro Chem Inc Mt Holly Mfg – Chemicals Homelite Division of Gastonia Mfg – Power tools / outdoor equipment Textron Dole Fresh Vegetables Bessemer City AG – Food Products Mecklenburg County NC Curtiss-Wright - Charlotte Mfg – Aerospace Headquarters
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 4-2
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Stakeholder Outreach
Company Location Industry Sector BAE Systems Charlotte Mfg – Aerospace General Dynamics Charlotte Mfg – Aerospace Northrop Grumman Charlotte Mfg – Aerospace Synoptics UTC Aerospace Systems Charlotte / Monroe Mfg – Aerospace Bosch Rexroth Charlotte Mfg – Drive, motion & control technologies Continental Tires Charlotte Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Equipment Timken Charlotte Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Equipment Sonic Automotive Charlotte Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Equipment Environmental Charlotte Mfg – Automotive, Truck & Heavy Performance Vehicles Equipment Ingersoll Rand Co (US Davidson Mfg – Diversified Industrial manufacturing Headquarters) Siemens Energy Charlotte Mfg – Large power equipment, turbines Flextronics Charlotte Mfg – Electrical/Electronic Electrolux Charlotte Mfg – Fabricated Metals International Paper Charlotte Mfg – Paper products Charlotte Pipe and Charlotte Mfg – Metal and plastic pipe and plumbing Foundry National Gypsum Charlotte Mfg – Construction materials SPX Corporation Charlotte Mfg – Multi-industry, global Conbraco Industries Matthews Mfg – Valves & fixtures Carrier Group Charlotte Mfg – Heating & AC Equipment Parker Hannnifin Charlotte Mfg – Drive & power conversion equipment Okuma America Charlotte Mfg – CNC machines Hitachi Metals Charlotte Mfg – Electrical equipment Sealed Air Charlotte Mfg – Plastics & Rubber products Husqvarna Charlotte Mfg – Machinery BSN Medical Charlotte Mfg – Medical Supplies Coats North America Charlotte Mfg – Textiles Standard Register Monroe Mfg – Printing Nucor Corp Charlotte Mfg – Fabricated Metals Polypore International Charlotte Mfg – Chemicals Clariant Corporation Charlotte Mfg – Chemicals Masonite Corporation Charlotte Mfg – Building materials - doors Cemex Charlotte Mfg – Building materials - Concrete Snyders-Lance Charlotte Mfg – Food
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 4-3
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Stakeholder Outreach
Company Location Industry Sector Coca Cola Bottling Charlotte Coca Cola distributers Company Consolidated Harris Teeter Matthews Retail – Groceries Family Dollar Matthews Retail HQ Belk Charlotte Retail HQ Dillards Regional Retail Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC & Regional Retail - Restaurants Long John Silvers Duke Energy Charlotte Energy AREVA Charlotte Energy HDG International Group Charlotte Energy – Coal, natural gas, oil Fedex Freight Charlotte Expedited Freight/Mail UPS Charlotte Expedited Freight/Mail U.S. Postal Service Charlotte Mail Bank of America Charlotte Financial Services Hilton Hotels Charlotte Leisure & Hospitality Marriott Hotels Charlotte Leisure & Hospitality Charlotte Convention Charlotte Leisure & Hospitality Center Cabarrus County NC Corning Incorporated Concord Mfg – Information Technology products Legrand/Pass & Seymour Concord/Ft Mill Mfg – Electrical equipment Celgard Concord Mfg – Microporous membranes The Shoe Show Concord Retail – Headquarters S&D Coffee Concord Retail – Coffee & Tea suppliers Amazon Warehouse CLT5 Concord Retail – Fulfillment distribution center Speedway Motorsports Concord Leisure & Hospitality – Tourism/Entertainment Stanly County NC Iac (International Albemarle Mfg – Automotive components Automotive Components) Fiberon New London Mfg – Building Materials - Composite Decking Clayton Mobile Homes Albemarle Mfg – Manufactured housing Preformed Line Products Albemarle Mfg – Communications/Energy transmission products Michelin Aircraft Tire Corp Norwood Mfg – Aircraft tires Stony Mountain Vineyards Albemarle AG – Wine Don Brooks Farm Albemarld AG – Agricultural products Union County NC ATI Specialty Materials Monroe Aerospace – metals
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 4-4
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Stakeholder Outreach
Company Location Industry Sector Greiner Bio-One Monroe Mfg – Medical and Biotech Plastics Dyna-Tech Manufacturing Monroe Mfg – Machine Parts, Fabrication Charlotte Pipe & Foundry - Monroe Mfg – Building Materials / Plastic Plastic Division Commodities Martin Marietta Materials Monroe Mfg – Building Products - Aggregates and Heavy Building Materials TDY Industries Monroe Mfg – Metal products Scott Technologies / Scott Monroe Mfg – Industrial Machinery Safety Bona U.S. Monroe Mfg – Chemicals Goulston Surface Monroe Mfg – Chemicals Modification Technologies RSC Chemical Solutions Indian Trail Mfg – Chemicals Tyson Foods Monroe AG – Food Pilgrims Pride Wingate / Marshville AG – Food Anson County NC Hornwood Inc Lilesville Mfg – Textiles Wade Manufacturing Wadesboro Mfg – Textiles Columbus Mckinnon Wadesboro Mfg – Industrial Machinery Triangle Brick Wadesboro Mfg – Building Products - Brick Pee Dee Forest Products Peachland Mfg – Lumber Bonsal American Lilesville Sand and Gravel Mining York County SC Schaeffler Group USA Fort Mill Mfg – Automotive / Aerospace - Bearings Legrand/Pass & Seymour - Ft Mill Mfg – Electrical equipment Distribution Center Springs Global Fort Mill Mfg – Textiles TE Connectivity Rock Hill Mfg – Electronics Velux USA Fort Mill Mfg – Building materials - skylights Shutterfly Fort Mill Mfg – Digital Printing Domtar Corporation - Fort Mill Mfg – Paper Operations Center Resolute Forest Products Catawba Mfg – Paper products Chester County SC ATI Allvac Richburg Mfg – Steel products Owens Corning Masonry Chester Mfg – Building Materials - Stone Veneer Products Morrison Contract Fort Lawn Mfg – Textile machinery Manufacturing (Morrison Textile Machinery) Omnova Solutions Chester Mfg – Chemicals
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 4-5
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Stakeholder Outreach
Company Location Industry Sector Chester Wood Products Chester Mfg – Building Materials (Boise Cascade) Lancaster County SC Duracell Lancaster Mfg – Batteries Keer America Ft Mill Mfg – Textiles Continental Tire Ft Mill Mfg – Automotive tire Archer Daniels Midland Kershaw AG – Soybean Processing Accutrex products - Lancaster Mfg – Tool & Die, stamping precision parts div Elginwood Farms Lancaster AG – grain and feed
Other HSM (Hickory Springs Conover/Hickory/Claremont/High Mfg – Furniture / Bedding Manufacturing) Point Century Furniture Hickory Mfg – Furniture Ethan Allen Furniture Maiden Mfg – Furniture CommScope Hickory Mfg – Communications Equipment Shurtape Technologies Hickory Mfg – Adhesive tapes Advance/Pierre Foods Claremont Mfg – Food Products
4.4 SURVEYS Two rounds of online surveys will be conducted to members of trade organizations such as the North (and South) Carolina Trucking Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and other key freight stakeholders in the region. The two online surveys will be designed to obtain feedback related to the performance and condition of the freight transportation system.
4.5 FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Freight Advisory Committee (FAC) will be established by identifying members during the Plan development process and be composed of members of the private sector including firms related to trucking, rail and aviation. The FAC members will assist in the development of the Plan and may assist in implementation once established. The purpose of FAC is to improve freight operations in the region on an on-going basis and provide the region with a more detailed understanding of freight issues that the CCOG and private industry will face in the coming years. The Freight Plan will describe the role of this committee and how it should evolve to be an effective and representative voice on regional freight issues.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 4-6
5. FREIGHT TRENDS AND ISSUES
Changes in the economy can impact the freight system positively or negatively depending on the efficiency and adaptability of the freight transportation network. This chapter summarizes the internal and external economic trends and issues related to the movement of goods on the Greater Charlotte’s regional freight transportation network.
5.1 NATIONAL TRENDS AND ISSUES 5.1.1 PANAMA CANAL The Panama Canal, completed in 1914, created one of the most important trade routes in the world, linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. After nearly a century, the canal is undergoing a $7 billion expansion to increase capacity and accommodate larger ships. The expanded canal with new locks will allow for deeper, longer and wider “New Panamax” vessels, doubling existing throughput capacity from 5,000 20-foot equivalent units (TEU) on current vessels to (potentially) 13,000 TEU. The expansion, scheduled to be completed in mid-2016, will possibly reduce delays and shipper costs. Access to ports that can accommodate these ships may shift freight rail and truck routes from ports to the Charlotte region.
5.1.2 FREIGHT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT A Freight Oriented Development (FOD) is a development of consolidated freight related business such as manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, and freight forwarding operations directly connected to the regional freight network. These types of development cluster like industrial businesses for improved efficiency while preserving industrial land uses and minimizing impacts to non-freight oriented areas.
5.1.3 ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION FUELS In 2011, transportation use accounted for less than one percent of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. However, natural gas consumption in the transportation sector is expected to grow from 40 billion cubic feet (bcf) in 2012 to 850 bcf in 2040, an increase of 21-fold. Citigroup forecasts that 30 percent of the heavy truck fleet would shift to natural gas by the end of 2020; however, others project growth at a lower rate. Currently, the main obstacle to faster conversion from diesel and gasoline is the higher cost of natural gas powered trucks and the lack of refueling stations for long- haul trips.
Natural gas is currently about 30 to 40 percent less expensive than diesel on a per gallon equivalent basis on the retail market. Consequently, commercial trucking fleets have begun converting to compressed natural gas (CNG) for short-haul operations and LNG for long-haul operations. Companies with large fleets that have made commitments to CNG/LNG include United Parcel Service (UPS), Waste Management and AT&T, to name a few.
The EIA also projects that LNG will play an increasing role in powering freight locomotives in coming years. Several major railroads are considering the use of LNG in their locomotives to lower long-term
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues costs; however, the upfront capital cost in switching to LNG- powered locomotives is substantial. While experts believe that a switch to LNG to some degree is inevitable, the pace of change and the penetration of change are highly uncertain. The EIA’s projections on the use of LNG to meet rail freight energy needs range from a low of 16 percent in by 2040 to a high of 95 percent.
Further adoption of natural gas for transportation use will require more filling stations and widespread distribution and awareness by policy-makers. Currently, most filling stations (like those being built by UPS) are paid for and used privately. However, if demand for CNG and/or LNG fueling stations continues to grow, the State or local governments may need to consider policies to attract or allow for fueling stations so that more businesses (and, potentially, residents) can access this fuel.
Biofuels also have the potential to reduce carbon emissions, reduce reliance on foreign oil and create rural economic development. For these reasons, biodiesel is an important biofuel for freight transportation. Increasing the use of a biodiesel blend has shown potential to be a short-term, relatively low-cost way to reduce freight-related emissions [including CO2, nitrous oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM-10)], which could be attractive to areas that are in nonattainment under Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) air quality standards.
5.1.4 AIR QUALITY AND REGULATION The U.S. Clean Air Act regulates areas that do not meet the standards for criteria pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In nonattainment areas, federal law requires state and local governments to develop and implement plans for bringing these areas back into compliance. These areas operate under ‘maintenance’ state implementation plans (SIPs), which often have provisions affecting the transportation network.
As it relates to freight, project delays only prolong bottlenecks for truckers (who carry goods to other parts of the system), and restrictions on traffic in general can also affect trucks. Air quality regulation under the Clean Air Act is yet another factor driving environmental improvements in truck emissions and fuel use.
Additionally, the EPA is adopting more stringent exhaust emission standards for large marine diesel engines; the overall strategy includes adjusting Clean Air Act standards and implementing international standards. By 2030, the measures are expected to reduce annual nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in the U.S. by approximately 1.2 million tons and particulate matter emissions by 143,000 tons.1 As trucking companies are required to retrofit exhaust systems or purchase new compliant trucks to meet more stringent requirements, the associated costs will mean higher operating expenses for shippers, which in turn will lead to higher costs to transport goods.
5.1.5 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) Freight volumes continue to increase and technological advances in dedicated freight infrastructure have the potential to optimize and improve the transportation network. Specifically, advances in ITS
1 USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “EPA Finalizes More Stringent Standards for Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder.”
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-2
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues such as dedicated truck lanes and autonomous freight vehicles may change the safety and efficiency of goods movement along roadways. One component of ITS currently used in urban areas to monitor highway conditions and inform drivers of traffic slowdowns, delays and incidents is variable message boards/signs. Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS) (as is being tested in Texas) includes the sharing information between the terminal operator, truck dispatcher and public that relays both real-time and predicted terminal queue time; real-time routing, navigation, traffic and weather data, and drayage optimization.
In addition, applications can include advanced emergency management that aims to reduce congestion on major roadways through monitoring traffic incidents with closed circuit television cameras, dispatching vehicles to remove debris or hazardous materials, communicating the most direct routes to emergency vehicles to help them arrive more quickly at accident scenes and displaying information on dynamic message signs to alert travelers of any issues.
5.1.6 CLIMATE VOLATILITY Climate volatility is likely to have more impact on the future of surface transportation than any other issue. Anticipated sea level rise, more extreme weather events, and an increase in very hot days/heat waves have the potential to severely impact the freight transportation network. State DOTs may face future challenges and implications for surface transportation such as meeting changing public expectations, adapting vulnerable transportation infrastructure, and addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.
5.1.7 DEDICATED FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE As freight volumes have increased across the U.S. during the past several decades, concepts for dedicated freight infrastructure – like autonomous freight vehicles and dedicated truck lanes – have increasingly entered the transportation discussion.
Dedicated truck lanes physically separate commercial vehicles from passenger vehicles or mixed traffic flows. In recent years, states including California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri and Texas have examined dedicated truck lane concepts, as have a number of multistate corridor coalitions, such as those associated with I-70 and I-10. While highway lanes dedicated to commercial vehicles may not seem like advanced technology, separating vehicle streams introduces a new level of complexity in highway design (e.g., on-/off-ramps) and operations (dealing with incidents or breakdowns). To date, there are no dedicated truck lanes in North Carolina, and those that do exist elsewhere tend to be relatively short routes serving ports or key border crossings. Benefits associated with dedicated truck lanes include significant safety gains, the potential of adopting high productivity vehicle (HPV) configurations and the possibility of infusing advanced technologies such as Intelligent Vehicle Initiatives (IVI) and the autonomous truck or self-driving truck.
5.1.8 CONNECTED AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES Connected Vehicles and Autonomous Vehicles are two terms for advances in vehicle technology that is aimed at making roadway travel safer and more efficient. Connected vehicles are those that utilize short range communications and cellular networks so that the vehicle can exchange information with
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-3
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues other vehicles [Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V)] or to the transportation network [Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I)]. Connected vehicles are not self-driving. These are Autonomous vehicles. Although Autonomous vehicles may have some of the connected vehicle technology, it is not required. These vehicles use internal sensors, cameras, GPS, and advanced software to operate all or functions of a vehicle without driver assistance. Table 5-1 shows the various levels of vehicle automation.
Table 5-1: Levels of Vehicle Automation
Level of Automation Description/Features • Forward collision warning, lane departure warning, blind spot 0 No Automation monitoring • Temporarily cede control of either forward (speed) or lateral (side-to- Function Specific side) movements, but not at the same time. 1 Automation • Dynamic brake support, electronic stability control, adaptive cruise control Combined Function • At least two primary control functions designed to work in unison 2 Automation • Adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering • Enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions Limited Self-Driving 3 • Designed so that the driver is not expected to constantly monitor the Automation roadway while driving Full Self-Driving • Designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor 4 Automation roadway conditions for an entire trip
The development of autonomous trucks continues to advance significantly. This type of truck uses a system called the Highway Pilot, which enables the human driver to switch control over to the truck's embedded system after entering the flow of traffic and reaching 50 miles per hour. This technology uses a combination of vehicle-to-vehicle Wi-Fi communication, radar and cameras to operate on Highway Pilot.
States that have legislation that allows for the testing of automated vehicles include California, Nevada, Michigan and Florida. South Carolina is considering legislation.
5.1.9 E-COMMERCE AND DRONE HOME DELIVERY Electronic commerce (E-commerce) is the use of electronic devices and technologies to conduct commerce, or trade, including buying products on the internet and electronic banking. E-commerce has increased from 0.6 percent of total retail activity in 1999 to 6.7 percent in the 4th quarter of 20142. To compete, traditional retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Lowes and Home Depot have implemented new strategies like ‘buy on-line, pick up in store’ and have established more local distribution centers to create expedited supply chains. E-retailers like Amazon and eBay have constructed a series of centralized distribution centers. This rapid e-commerce requires fast, on-time delivery, which is sensitive to both distance and congestion. A result of this trend is a higher number
2 U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales 4th Quarter 2014, http://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-4
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues of delivery vehicles entering into residential neighborhoods. As residential deliveries increase, a potential concern is an increase in related congestion and wear and tear to the local road network.
However, one emerging potential strategy for home delivery uses unmanned aircraft, also known as drones. A drone is defined as an unmanned aircraft or ship guided autonomously or by remote control. In February 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released proposed rules governing the use of drones for commercial purposes.
5.1.10 AUTOMATED PERMITTING An automated truck permitting system can streamline workflow processes, improve the safety of vehicle movements, and help preserve transportation infrastructure.
5.2 REGIONAL TRENDS AND ISSUES 5.2.1 DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION Population growth in North and South Carolina is well over the national average at 5.3 and 5.5 percent (respectively) compared to 4.1 percent nationally between 2010 and 2015 (Table 5-2).
Table 5-2: North Carolina, South Carolina, and US Population Comparison (2010 and 2015)
Population US NC SC 2010 308,758,105 9,535,692 4,625,401 2015 321,418,820 10,042,802 4,896,146 % Change 4.1% 5.3% 5.9% Source: US Census
The Greater Charlotte Region continues to grow, even ahead of the national and state totals. Between 2010 and 2014, the 14 county study area grew 6.6 percent with the bulk of that growth happening in Mecklenburg County (Table 5-3 and Figure 5-1).
Table 5-3: Regional Population (2010 and 2014)
Population 2010 2014 % Change Iredell County, North Carolina 159,437 166,675 4.5% Rowan County, North Carolina 138,428 138,630 0.1% Cabarrus County, North Carolina 178,011 192,103 7.9% Stanly County, North Carolina 60,585 60,600 0.0% Anson County, North Carolina 26,948 25,765 -4.4% Union County, North Carolina 201,292 218,568 8.6% Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 919,628 1,012,539 10.1% Lincoln County, North Carolina 78,265 79,829 2.0% Gaston County, North Carolina 206,086 211,127 2.4% Cleveland County, North Carolina 98,078 97,076 -1.0% York County, South Carolina 226,073 245,346 8.5%
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-5
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
Population 2010 2014 % Change Union County, South Carolina 28,961 27,876 -3.7% Chester County, South Carolina 33,140 32,337 -2.4% Lancaster County, South Carolina 76,652 83,160 8.5% Source: US Census
Figure 5-1: Regional Population (2010 and 2014)
Regional Population
Lancaster County, South Carolina Chester County, South Carolina Union County, South Carolina York County, South Carolina Cleveland County, North Carolina Gaston County, North Carolina Lincoln County, North Carolina Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Union County, North Carolina Anson County, North Carolina Stanly County, North Carolina Cabarrus County, North Carolina Rowan County, North Carolina Iredell County, North Carolina
- 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
2014 2010
Source: US Census
EMPLOYMENT Between 2012 and 2013 there was a 3.6 percent increase in employment throughout the region. Most of the job increases have occurred in Mecklenburg County, with only Lincoln County, NC and Union County, SC showing employment decreases (Table 5-4 and Figure 5-2).
Table 5-4: Regional Employment (2012 and 2013)
% County 2012 2013 Change Iredell County, North Carolina 58,237 60,162 3.2% Rowan County, North Carolina 39,756 41,848 5.0% Cabarrus County, North Carolina 56,568 57,722 2.0% Stanly County, North Carolina 15,355 15,830 3.0% Anson County, North Carolina 4,952 5,089 2.7% Union County, North Carolina 45,929 47,496 3.3%
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-6
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
% County 2012 2013 Change Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 535,996 558,911 4.1% Lincoln County, North Carolina 17,055 16,970 -0.5% Gaston County, North Carolina 62,045 63,311 2.0% Cleveland County, North Carolina 27,688 28,081 1.4% York County, South Carolina 67,630 68,940 1.9% Union County, South Carolina 6,081 5,968 -1.9% Chester County, South Carolina 6,414 6,709 4.4% Lancaster County, South Carolina 15,037 16,615 9.5% Source: US Census
Figure 5-2: Regional Employment (2012 and 2013)
Regional Employment
Lancaster County, South Carolina Chester County, South Carolina Union County, South Carolina York County, South Carolina Cleveland County, North Carolina Gaston County, North Carolina Lincoln County, North Carolina Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Union County, North Carolina Anson County, North Carolina Stanly County, North Carolina Cabarrus County, North Carolina Rowan County, North Carolina Iredell County, North Carolina
- 200,000 400,000 600,000
2013 2012
Source: US Census
The regional unemployment rate hit its peak of nearly 13 percent in January 2010 due to the recession. Since then, the rate has dropped to 5.3 percent in January 2016.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-7
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
Figure 5-3: Regional Unemployment Rate (2006 to 2016)
Annual Unemployment Rate 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
5.2.2 ECONOMY EXPORTS Exports are extremely important to a regional economy. They provide jobs for local businesses and provide an influx of cash for goods and services that are required for growing an economy.
In 2013, Charlotte’s top export markets included Mexico ($3.9 billion), Canada ($1.8 billion), China ($635 million), Germany ($335 million), and France ($324 million) as listed in Table 5-5. In addition to these markets, Charlotte also ranks among the major metropolitan area exporters to Honduras and Sweden.
Table 5-5: Top Charlotte Region Export Countries (2013)
Country Value Share Mexico $3.9 billion 36.0% Canada $1.8 billion 16.4% China $634.6 million 5.9% Germany $335.2 million 3.1% France $323.8 million 3.0% Source: Office of Trade and Economic Analysis.
Top export sectors from Charlotte in 2013 were transportation equipment ($3.1 billion), machinery (except electrical) ($2.2 billion), chemicals ($1.1 billion), paper ($634 million), and plastics and rubber products ($617 million) as shown in Table 5-6. Charlotte is also a major metropolitan area exporter of textiles and fabrics; primary metal manufacturing; fabricated metal products; nonmetallic mineral products; and textile product mills.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-8
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
Table 5-6: Top Charlotte Region Export Sectors (2013)
Sector Value Share Transportation Equipment $3.1 billion 29.1% Machinery, Except Electrical $2.2 billion 20.2% Chemicals $1.1 billion 9.9% Paper $634.0 5.9% Plastics and Rubber $617.1 5.8% Source: Office of Trade and Economic Analysis.
In 2013, the Charlotte metropolitan area was the 31st largest export market in the US, with merchandise shipments totaling $10.7 billion. This is up $4.4 billion (69.0 percent) from the $6.3 billion in merchandise exported in 2012. In 2011 (latest data available), 2,858 companies exported goods from the Charlotte metropolitan area. Of these, 2,440 were small- or medium-sized exporters (SMEs) with fewer than 500 employees.
In addition to seeing high dollar growth, the Charlotte, NC-SC area saw the fastest percentage growth in exports among the top 50 metro areas from 2012 to 2013, with goods exports increasing by 69.0 percent. During this period, this metro area saw strong exports of transportation equipment (up 333.0 percent) as well as machinery (up 80.9 percent). This growth is important to note since it is not reflected in the 2012 Freight Analysis Framework commodity flow discussion in Chapter 7.
5.2.3 TRUCKING Because nearly every freight shipment travels by truck at some point in its delivery, challenges on the highway system can cause ripples through the state’s freight transportation system and the economy. Delay, safety, and access issues raise costs for shippers, carriers, manufacturers and consumers alike.
TRUCK SIZE & WEIGHT LIMITS Increases in the size and weight of vehicles may improve freight efficiency, but they may also have a lasting impact on roadway quality and may compromise safety. In addition, heavier and larger trucks require route plans that may necessitate the need for lengthy detours due to weight limits, or vertical or horizontal clearances. The region’s roadway system is relatively well equipped to handle the current truck traffic, particularly in urban areas. In rural areas however, infrastructure that was built decades ago may struggle to handle the loads particularly as the timber industry continues to access sites that require access to these roadways and bridges.
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT Incident management describes the coordinated activities of transportation and emergency and law enforcement agencies to respond to crashes, highway construction and incidents such as hurricanes. Proper planning and investment in incident management can decrease the response times to emergencies and can help restore a corridor to pre-incident flow rates quickly. Statewide and regional transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events provide a framework for comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary preparedness, response, and management for a wide range of incidents that affect freight transportation systems in in the region.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-9
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
Providing solutions that address all hazards will support transportation system management, congestion management, and emergency response preparedness. Barriers to better incident management exist within the region such as manpower, funding limitations, lack of best practices knowledge, and bureaucracy/coordination issues.
LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF TRUCK PARKING Hours of service regulations for truck drivers requires off-duty times for rest. The limited availability of parking has occasionally resulted may result in trucks parked on ramps and shoulders, which may present a safety risk. An inventory of parking supply conducted by a recent FHWA report3 notes that North Carolina has the 23rd highest number of commercial truck parking spaces (5,845) being accommodated by 53 public facilities and 206 private facilities. However, the location of truck parking facilities is critical especially in urban locations where the current supply may not be adequate in high demand locations. More is described in Section 6.1.6.
OVERALL CONDITION & DESIGN OF ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE As the economy grows and new industries are established, the highway system will be expected to carry more freight. Heavy-use truck routes often experience rough pavement, tight turning radii, narrow lane width, short ramps, inadequate merging lanes, lane restrictions and overall capacity issues. Improvements to address issues can range from small scale intersection improvements to the rebuilding and expanding of long stretches of highway links.
IMPROVED CONNECTIVITY Intermodal connectivity allows the freight system to operate more efficiently by increasing the mode choices and speed at which goods move throughout the region. Issues exist with routes and infrastructure to rail yards, airports, and industry clusters. Improving these connections will increase the velocity of freight, reduce transportation costs and positively impact freight-reliant industries.
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING MECHANISMS The region is not unique in terms of transportation funding shortfalls. Transportation needs far outweigh the resources available and historically, freight needs have not received separate attention from transportation in general. There is a freight specific need for additional transportation funding mechanisms, particularly for highway maintenance and construction. In addition, funding programs are often prescribed for specific types of projects or modes, limiting the ability to fund some high priority projects. Multimodal transportation funds, which can be used for transportation projects on a competitive basis regardless of mode, have begun to gain popularity in other states.
In 2013, the Strategic Transportation Investments law (STI) was passed by the North Carolina legislature which provides more funding flexibility to the NCDOT. In addition, the STI also establishes the Strategic Mobility Formula, which is on data-driven scoring and local input. It was used for the
3 “Jason's Law Truck Parking Survey Results and Comparative Analysis”, FHWA, August 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-10
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues first time to develop NCDOT's current construction schedule, the 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The federal Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act establishes funding mechanisms to aid freight transportation infrastructure. FAST establishes a new National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) as part of the core Federal-aid Highway Program structure. The NHFP directs Federal resources and policies to NHFN improvement. The formula is based on the State’s overall share of highway program apportionments. Certain non-highway projects are eligible to receive portions (up to 10 percent) of the NHFP and NSFHP dollars.
5.2.4 FREIGHT RAIL Over 5 percent of all freight moves by rail in the region. While the rail system is owned and operated by the private sector, the public sector has an interest in maintaining and improving its viability, because rail investments can save money on roadway preservation and capacity over the long run. Addressing the rail system’s challenge to improving efficiency can help accommodate expected growth while meeting the safety and performance goals established in this Plan.
GRADE CROSSING SAFETY At the more than 1,500 at grade highway/rail crossings in the region, 63 collisions occurred in the past 5 years. Improving the crossings’ warning systems or eliminating at-grade crossing would address potential safety conflicts.
TERMINAL CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS Freight rail relies heavily on the intermodal connections with trucks. The transfer of bulk commodities such as grain, coal, oil, etc. requires adequate intermodal operations capacity to move goods from production to consumption markets. Intermodal terminal capacity constraints will reduce efficiency, ultimately increasing costs.
LIMITED RAIL WEIGHT LIMITS The short line railroads’ inability to accommodate 286,000 lb. standard rail cars limits growth and creates chokepoints at rail switching locations with Class I railroads which can accommodate the standard sized rail car. Rail shipments that use these lines require extra planning so as not to exceed weight limits, resulting in more time for processing, and increased costs.
RAIL FUNDING Although there are some federal funding mechanisms for rail improvements and state funding for rail crossing improvements, there is no state fund set aside for rail capacity improvements. A state rail program to take advantage of federal programs that require a match would help address the 286k track limitations that the system faces. Also, states could assist short line railroads to sponsor rail improvement projects for federal funding. This is permitted in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA).
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-11
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
INTERMODAL TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT AND MULTIMODAL DIVERSITY Addressing the need for rail access improvements to businesses is a challenge but necessary to compete with other states. Improved intermodal terminal development could improve access to the national rail system and improve the attractiveness of rail to area shippers and receivers.
5.2.5 AIR CARGO Though small in volume, airborne freight has by far the highest value per ton of any mode. Typical commodities include goods from the pharmaceutical, automotive, and high-tech manufacturing sectors as well as the consumer parcel delivery services. Moving goods by air is expensive and the industry responds to the forces of supply and demand. This is not unique to the region but an industry wide fact of life.
DOMESTIC AIRLINE SPACE AVAILABILITY The availability of domestic airline carriers belly space is declining due to the increased use of regional jets offering limited cargo capacity. The smaller jets are less costly to operate for short haul passenger movements, but they have little or no space for cargo. This reduced capacity, paired with improvements in truck logistics, has resulted in the U.S. Postal Service scaling back the amount of mail it moves by air.
AIR INTERMODAL CONNECTIONS In general, the constraints in land side access to airports occur outside the airport properties as trucks navigate the regional and local roadway systems. Access to transfer facilities and equipment at the region’s freight-capable airports is good.
5.2.6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Though not an economic development analysis, there is a nexus between economic development and freight transportation. Table 5-7 shows freight transportation economic development impacts, evaluation methods, and strategies to achieve related economic development objectives4.
Table 5-7: Transportation Factors and Economic Development
Factor Description Development Strategies Jobs and business activity caused by Favor policies and projects with greater Project expenditures project expenditures job creation Consumer Impacts of future consumer Favor policies and projects that reduce expenditures transportation expenditures future fuel and vehicle expenditures Transportation Whether transportation investments Choose projects with high return on project cost repay costs and optimize value investment or benefit/cost ratios efficiency
4 Source: Litman, Todd, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts: Understanding How Transport Policy and Planning Decisions Affect Employment, Incomes, Productivity, Competitiveness, Property Values and Tax Revenues, August 2010, p1.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-12
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
Factor Description Development Strategies Ratio of benefits to costs. Whether Use efficient pricing and policies that Transportation transportation policies support economic favor higher value trips (such as freight) system efficiency objectives and efficient modes Impacts on local retail and tourism Improve access and travel conditions, Retail and Tourism industries reduce negative impacts Impacts on specific industries and Impacts on specific Identify potential negative impacts and businesses (e.g. oil, gas, vehicle industries mitigation strategies manufacturing, etc.) Support projects that increase property Property values and Whether policies and projects increase values. Capture value for transport development real estate values and development project funding. Support for more accessible, efficient Favor projects that support strategic Land use objectives land use development land use objectives
CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CDIA) has been one of the major focuses of freight related economic development for the region. There are, however, issues of finding suitable industrial sites around the airport due to the topography which is generally quite hilly, with few large flat areas with less than 3 percent slopes. This will push industrial development farther out across the region as 3 percent grade is the limit on industrial development as grading costs on sites with slopes greater than 3 percent makes them financially prohibitive and thereby uncompetitive in the marketplace. The CDIA is currently in the process of developing a master plan. It is also in the process of planning a 2,000 foot runway that will accommodate heavy freight air cargo.
To fully capture and leverage the goal of making Charlotte a major freight hub on the East Coast between Atlanta and New York will depend on attracting significant industrial users, manufacturers and other freight related industry to the region. The amount of new development anticipated will far exceed the capacities of the area around the airport and in Mecklenburg County. Therefore, there is a need to develop a regional economic development strategy that incorporates an efficient multimodal freight network that will shape the distribution of economic activity across the region.
While Charlotte Douglas International Airport had grown to become the nation’s 19th largest airport in the mid-nineties, with over 20 million passengers per year, it had developed only a small freight volume, not comparable to its passenger volumes.
Despite Charlotte’s location at the cross roads of I-85, the primary Southeast freight corridor linking the Northeast with Atlanta, and I-77, linking the Charleston and Savannah ports to the Midwest and via I-81 to Northeast, played only a minor role in freight functions along the East Coast in the mid- nineties. A freight study was conducted to determine how the airport could develop a strategy to increase its airfreight component. The study was based on both research and meetings with the airlines, railroads, trucking companies, ocean freight, communications, finance, and energy.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-13
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
The analysis revealed that the fragmented nature of the three major air freight hubs on the east coast (New York, Atlanta and Miami) revealed that they were highly fragmented. Intermodal and multi-modal freight transfers between modes could only be done by drays that were subject to congestion, accident or weather delays, thus the cost was higher and the reliability lower for freight transfers taking place in those hubs as it moves through the network. Future growth of a global economy would increase total world freight flows and create the opportunity for a fourth hub, Charlotte, to emerge along the East Coast with its location between Atlanta and New York.
Strategy The CDIA strategy was built around the recognition that in order to emerge as a freight hub it had to create a competitive advantage for the Charlotte Region. As Miami, Atlanta and New York had well developed freight infrastructures that handled the dominant global and domestic flows on the East Coast, it was determined that Charlotte could not grow to a similar level and size incrementally, but had to offer something transformational that was superior to the facilities located in those competitive cities. If Charlotte could offer superior intermodal and multimodal transfer of freight by eliminating the dray required to make the transfer in facilities that were not collocated in the competitive cities, it could create a competitive advantage.
Between 1994 and 1997, CDIA developed the Airport Strategic Plan based on creating an integrated multimodal freight center at the airport that would provide the anchor and competitive advantage for the Charlotte region. The planning process was designed as a collaborative process through which relationships were created with the airlines, railroads, trucking, financial and communications companies, who all participated in the development of the final plan.
As the strategic plan was being completed, engineering on the facility began and was completed through a process that included state and federal agencies, the Norfolk Southern Railroad, (NS) and the airport. While Charlotte had not originally been considered an important location in the Norfolk Southern system as the planning process progressed, NS was redesigning its East Coast rail network, hubs and corridors. The new pattern that emerged was called the Crescent Corridor and Charlotte became a key hub in the system.
Implementation and Current Activity The intermodal yard broke ground in 2012 and opened in 2014. A benefits analysis of the construction phase documented the economic ($40 million savings in the construction of the runway and the intermodal yard), environmental (thousands of tons of pollutants and hundreds of acres of farmland saved), transportation (5.4 million truck-miles eliminated – reducing congestion and road damage on adjacent arterials).
Prior to the opening of the airport intermodal yard, the Charlotte region moved approximately 100,000 containers per year, with a peak year of 110,000. The first year the airport intermodal yard opened, it was slated to move 160,000 with a capacity of 200,000 and the ability to grow to 600,000 containers per year.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-14
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Trends and Issues
Recently, the airport hired an economic development professional to help develop an economic strategy to maximize the impact of the airport on the regional economy and the use of property around the airport. A master plan for the uses of property within the airport strategic development zone is currently underway.
Figure 5-4: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Cargo Volumes (2013 through 2015)
Source: Charlotte Chamber of Commerce
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 5-15
6. CURRENT CONDITIONS
The condition and performance of the Greater Charlotte Region’s freight transportation system is a product of economic conditions, system demand, quality and timing of operations and maintenance, and investments. This chapter summarizes the freight transportation system in the Greater Charlotte Region and documents the current condition and performance of good movement.
6.1 HIGHWAY/TRUCKING The regional roadway network consists of all classifications of roadways, from interstates to rural collectors. As such, it is important to focus the plan on those roadways most important to regional freight movements by understanding first which are critical to shippers and receivers of goods. Figure 6-1 provides the starting point for the identification of these freight dependent roadways. It shows the regional interstates, US highways, state routes, secondary routes and local/city roads.
Figure 6-1: Greater Charlotte Region’s Roadway Network
Source: NCDOT and SCDOT
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
6.1.1 NATIONAL HIGHWAY FREIGHT NETWORK The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act creates a National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) which designates and includes funding provisions for a National Highway Freight Network (NHFN). The NHFN includes all Interstate highways within 41,000 miles of the primary freight network highway miles identified under MAP-21 and other State-identified highway segments. The NHFN for the country is illustrated in Figure 6-2 and in Figure 6-3 for the Charlotte region. This network is important to include in the identification of the regional freight plan network since it is directly tied to federal project funding programs.
Figure 6-2: National Highway Freight Network
Source: Federal Highway Administration
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-2
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-3: Charlotte Regional National Highway Freight Network
Source: Federal Highway Administration
6.1.2 REGIONAL TRUCK ACTIVITY HIGHWAY TRUCK VOLUMES The interstates carry the bulk of the region’s daily truck traffic. As can be seen in Figure 6-3, I-85 and I-77 constitute the critical freight corridors throughout the region. Other roadways that that play a critical role in the movement of truck freight are I-485, US 74, US 321, NC 160 (near the airport), and SC 9 through Chester and Lancaster, SC.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-3
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-4: Truck AADT (2012)
Source: NCDOT
REGIONAL TRUCK VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a measure of the extent of truck operations over a period of time. It provides information of the extent to which trucks utilize the highway infrastructure. Table 6- 1 shows truck VMT compared to total VMT in order to see the relative utilization of the roadways within the study area counties.
Table 6-1: Truck VMT Compared to Total VMT (2015)
Truck County Total VMT Truck VMT VMT % Anson NC 1,005,229 108,914 10.8% Cabarrus NC 4,462,744 289,639 6.5% Chester SC 1,071,326 66,908 6.2% Cleveland NC 2,777,646 272,939 9.8% Gaston NC 5,551,241 468,342 8.4% Iredell NC 5,347,474 613,751 11.5% Lancaster SC 1,850,065 18,088 1.0%
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-4
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Truck County Total VMT Truck VMT VMT % Lincoln NC 1,713,744 107,387 6.3% Mecklenburg NC 26,059,665 1,376,272 5.3% Rowan NC 3,461,948 296,010 8.6% Stanly NC 1,133,492 97,258 8.6% Union NC 3,766,324 238,009 6.3% Union SC 533,802 6,496 1.2% York SC 5,098,015 115,938 2.3% Source: NCDOT Statewide Travel Demand Model
The table shows that trucks make up the largest share of total VMT in the counties of Iredell, Anson and Cleveland.
6.1.3 FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE & STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES Functionally obsolete bridges are bridges that no longer meet the current standards, such as narrow lanes or low load-carrying capacity. As a result, these bridges have not been designed for the current loads/trucks that current traverse the freight highway system. Structurally deficient bridges require significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement and are unable to carry certain freight loads. For these reasons, they can serve as constraints to the freight highway network and are therefore important to include in freight network analyses. Both the functionally obsolete and structurally deficient bridges are shown in Figure 6-5. In the region there are nearly 898 functionally obsolete and 421 structurally deficient bridges.
These bridges will be overlaid on the freight highway network (once defined) to determine which ones will need to be analyzed and incorporated into potential improvements to the system.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-5
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-5: Functionally Obsolete & Structurally Deficient Bridges (2014)
Source: NCDOT and SCDOT
Posted bridges can provide significant obstacles for trucks, particularly in rural areas where infrastructure is limited resulting in long detour routes. Table 6-2 shows the posted bridges within the region.
Table 6-2: Weight Posted Bridges (March 2016)
Single Unit Tractor NCDOT Bridge Truck Gross Trailer Truck County Route Across Feature Division Number Weight Limit Gross Weight (lbs) Limit (lbs) 9 Rowan 790046 US29/70 Yadkin River 33,000 38,000 10 Anson 030084 NC742 Lanes Creek 34,000 38,000 10 Cabarrus 120022 NC24 & NC27 EBL Rocky River 41,000 44,000 Southern 10 Cabarrus 120069 US29/US601 SBL 40,000 40,000 Railway Dutch Buffalo 10 Cabarrus 120103 NC49 24,000 30,000 Creek 10 Union 890029 NC218 Goose Creek 32,000 38,000
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-6
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Single Unit Tractor NCDOT Bridge Truck Gross Trailer Truck County Route Across Feature Division Number Weight Limit Gross Weight (lbs) Limit (lbs) 10 Union 890058 NC218 Crooked Creek 38,000 42,000 Duke Power 12 Gaston 350022 NC273 26,000 39,000 Feeder 12 Gaston 350092 NC274 UT to Mill Creek 26,000 39,000 12 Iredell 480038 US21 Third Creek 30,000 32,000 12 Iredell 480069 NC115 Rocky Creek 26,000 37,000 Source: NCDOT
6.1.4 TRUCK SAFETY This section presents commercial motor vehicle safety and crash data collected by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS) for the CCOG study area. The data presents incident information in different ways to identify existing trends and opportunities to enhance safety for commercial motor vehicles, all motor vehicles, and other roadway users throughout the area. Most crashes occur in densely populated areas or along interstates, as shown in Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7. Corridors with particularly high densities of crashes include I-85 from Kannapolis to Charlotte and I-77 from Charlotte to Ft. Mill, SC.
Figure 6-6: Commercial Vehicle Crash Incidents by Type (2009 through 2013)
Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-7
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-7: Commercial Vehicle Crash Hotspots (2009 through 2013)
Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
The Transportation Mobility and Safety Unit at NCDOT and the SCPDS maintain motor vehicle safety information for North Carolina and South Carolina, respectively. The available data is a compilation of crash reports collected from state, sheriff, and local police agencies. The database includes a variety of specific crash information for all motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicles. It should be noted that the NCDOT and SCPDS data is reported differently in some cases, as such, data from the two sources was aggregated based on similar descriptions (ex. Sleet or Hail was considered the same as Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain/Drizzle). Data presented in this section focuses on commercial motor vehicle crash data between 2009 and 2013 within the CCOG study area.
CRASH FREQUENCY Between 2009 and 2013, the commercial vehicle crashes represented 2.4 percent (6,626) of all motor vehicle (271,591) crashes. Between 2009 and 2013, the number of all motor vehicle crashes has increased by 15.9 percent while the number of commercial vehicle crashes increased by 19.3 percent; however, the relative number of commercial vehicle crashes to all motor vehicle crashes has been relatively steady during this time period (Table 6-3).
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-8
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Table 6-3: Commercial Vehicle and All Motor Vehicle Crashes (2009 through 2013)
Year Commercial Vehicle Crashes All Motor Vehicle Crashes CMV/All Vehicle Crashes 2009 1,172 51,411 2.3% 2010 1,298 52,145 2.5% 2011 1,321 52,172 2.5% 2012 1,437 56,270 2.6% 2013 1,398 59,593 2.3% Total 6,626 271,591 2.4% Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
CRASH SEVERITY All crashes are categorized as fatal, injury, or property damage only (PDO) based on the most severe impact to the driver(s) or passenger(s). For example, a crash that results in a fatality and one injured persons would be categorized as fatal, a crash that results three injured persons would be categorized as injury, and a crash that results in no fatalities or injured persons would be categorized as PDO.
In 2013, there were a total of 1,398 crashes in 2013 involving a commercial vehicle (Table 6-4). The percentage of crashes that involved fatalities, injury, and property damage only (PDO) was 1.4 percent, 30.6 percent, and 67.2 percent, respectively; the severity of 0.8 percent of crashes was unknown. Fatal and injury commercial vehicle crashes represented 0.03 percent and 0.72 percent of all motor vehicle crashes in 2013. There were 83 fatalities and 2,936 persons injured as a result of commercial vehicle crashes between 2009 and 2013 (Table 6-5).
Table 6-4: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Severity (2009 through 2013)
Year Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total 2009 18 343 801 10 1,172 2010 8 374 907 9 1,298 2011 14 415 881 11 1,321 2012 17 397 1,011 12 1,437 2013 19 428 940 11 1,398 Total 76 1,957 4,540 53 6,626 Source: NCDOT and SCPDS
Table 6-5: Persons Killed and Injured by Commercial Vehicle Crashes (2009 through-2013)
Year Persons Killed Persons Injured Total 2009 19 524 543 2010 9 538 547 2011 15 618 633 2012 18 638 656 2013 22 618 640 Total 83 2,936 3,019 Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-9
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
ROADWAY TYPE AND EXTERNAL CONDITIONS Approximately three quarters of all commercial vehicle crashes between 2009 and 2013 occurred on Interstates and County/Local roadways (75.4 percent). Of that 75 percent, 40 percent occurred on Interstates and 35 percent occurred on County/Local roadways (Table 6-6). Almost 40 percent of commercial vehicle fatal crashes occurred on Interstate roadways. The greatest number of fatal (30), injury (819), and total (2,663) crashes occurred on Interstate roadways.
Less than one fifth of commercial vehicle crashes (15.7 percent) between 2009 and 2013 occurred at locations with poor roadway conditions (Table 6-7). Of the 1,042 commercial vehicle crashes attributed to poor roadway conditions, 861 (82.6 percent) were due to wet roadways.
Weather conditions that may limit visibility played a role in less than one third of commercial vehicle crashes (27.9 percent) between 2009 and 2013 (Table 6-8). Of the 1,849 commercial vehicle crashes attributed to poor weather conditions, 1,252 (67.7 percent) occurred during cloudy conditions.
Approximately one quarter of commercial vehicle crashes (27.9 percent) between 2009 and 2013 occurred outside of daylight lighting conditions (Table 6-9). Of the 1,603 commercial vehicle crashes attributed to poor light conditions, 820 (51.2 percent) occurred under dark conditions along roadways that were not lighted.
Table 6-6: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Roadway Type and Severity (2009 through 2013)
Roadway Type Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total Interstate 30 819 1,808 6 2,663 US Highway 11 240 476 2 729 State Primary 15 178 311 3 507 State Secondary 8 139 243 6 396 County/Local 12 581 1,702 36 2,331 Total 76 1,957 4,540 53 6,626 Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
Table 6-7: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Roadway Conditions (2009 through 2013)
Roadway Condition Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total Dry 64 1,640 3,833 47 5,584 Fuel, Oil - 1 - - 1 Ice 1 18 49 - 68 Sand, Mud, Dirt, Gravel - - 3 1 4 Slush - 4 9 - 13 Snow - 9 33 - 42 Water (Standing, Moving) 1 10 26 - 37 Wet 10 271 577 3 861 Unknown - 4 10 2 16 Total 76 1,957 4,540 53 6,626 Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-10
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Table 6-8: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Weather Conditions (2009 through 2013)
Weather Condition Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total Clear 56 1,418 3,259 44 4,777 Cloudy 13 364 868 7 1,252 Fog, Smog, Smoke 1 10 21 - 32 Rain 6 150 329 2 487 Severe Crosswinds - - 1 - 1 Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain/Drizzle - 9 20 - 29 Snow - 6 39 - 45 Other - - 3 - 3 Total 76 1,957 4,540 53 6,626 Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
Table 6-9: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Light Condition (2009 through-2013)
Light Condition Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total Dawn 5 32 81 - 118 Daylight 44 1,451 3,487 41 5,023 Dusk 2 25 77 1 105 Dark - Lighted Roadway 4 175 360 5 544 Dark - Roadway Not Lighted 20 268 526 6 820 Dark - Unknown Lighting 1 5 8 - 14 Unknown - 1 1 - 2 Total 76 1,957 4,540 53 6,626 Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION Between 2009 and 2013, commercial vehicle crashes occurred at relatively similar rates during each month with the highest (646) and lowest (446) number in October and February, accordingly (Table 6-10 and Figure 6-8).
Table 6-10: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Month and Severity (2009 through 2013)
Month Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total January 11 155 342 4 512 February 6 115 321 4 446 March 4 159 391 5 559 April 1 159 348 5 513 May 5 146 351 5 507 June 13 175 356 3 547 July 6 170 382 3 561 August 8 187 392 5 592 September 4 153 382 2 541 October 9 198 434 5 646
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-11
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Month Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total November 6 159 429 6 600 December 3 181 412 6 602 Total 76 1,957 4,540 53 6,626 Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
Figure 6-8: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Month (2009 through 2013)
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 -
Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
Almost all commercial vehicle crashes occurred during weekdays (90.9 percent) and were equally distributed between Monday and Friday (Table 6-11 and Figure 6-9), which is primarily associated with typical commercial driver work schedules. More than three fourths of all commercial vehicle crashes occurred between 6 AM and 6 PM (77.2 percent) (Table 6-12 and Figure 6-10), matching both typical commercial driver and general public work schedules.
Table 6-11: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Day of Week and Severity (2009 through 2013)
Day Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total Sunday - 62 165 3 230 Monday 11 348 851 12 1,222 Tuesday 13 363 843 12 1,231 Wednesday 18 358 860 8 1,244 Thursday 19 351 785 9 1,164 Friday 11 354 794 3 1,162 Saturday 4 121 242 6 373 Total 76 1,957 4,540 53 6,626 Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-12
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-9: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Day of Week (2009 through 2013)
1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 - Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
Table 6-12: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Hour of Day and Severity (2009 through 2013)
Hour Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total Beginning 0:00 4 20 49 3 76 1:00 4 26 52 - 82 2:00 - 34 51 2 87 3:00 3 19 57 - 79 4:00 1 29 61 - 91 5:00 5 51 79 1 136 6:00 2 76 154 - 232 7:00 5 98 266 2 371 8:00 3 150 294 7 454 9:00 4 132 291 3 430 10:00 6 114 302 4 426 11:00 5 118 324 1 448 12:00 1 134 363 6 504 13:00 10 141 321 4 476 14:00 3 147 325 7 482 15:00 2 139 328 1 470 16:00 5 121 332 2 460 17:00 2 113 248 2 365 18:00 3 81 156 3 243 19:00 1 47 128 - 176 20:00 1 41 104 1 147 21:00 - 44 99 3 146 22:00 3 46 99 1 149 23:00 3 36 57 - 96 Total 72 1,937 4,491 50 6,626 Source: NCDOT and SCPDS
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-13
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-10: Commercial Vehicle Crashes by Hour of Day (2009 through 2013)
600
500
400
300
200
100
- 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour Beginning
Source: NCDOT and SCDPS
6.1.5 TRUCK BOTTLENECKS The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) was tasked by CDM Smith to analyze truck operations in and around the city of Charlotte, North Carolina. Truck GPS data was employed to analyze truck bottlenecks. Through this report, the ATRI team analyzed locations where truck bottlenecks cause significant problems on interstates and on major regional roads.
ATRI’s Freight Performance Measures (FPM) database was utilized to analyze truck bottlenecks throughout the Charlotte, NC region. The ATRI team analyzed the Charlotte metropolitan area during weekday peak driving hours. Five on-interstate bottlenecks and three off-interstate bottlenecks were found. One month of data from October 2015, at each these eight bottlenecks was next analyzed. The bottlenecks are shown in Figure 6-11.
The ATRI team then processed the truck GPS data at each bottleneck to find the following three figures:
1. Peak travel speeds 2. Off-peak travel speeds 3. Average hourly speeds for a full 24 hours
The above three numbers help to indicate truck speed changes throughout the day, and confirm the assumption of peak hours generally having slower speeds. The average hourly speeds for a full 24- hours for each bottleneck helps visualize the fluctuation in speeds during peak and off-peak hours, and determine at what hour a peak time period may begin or end. In addition, these graphs help to view if the peak hours are longer or shorter than the average peak hours for the rest of the country.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-14
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-11: Charlotte Regional Truck Bottlenecks
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
I-77 AT I-485 (SOUTH) BOTTLENECK Table 6-13 and Figures 6-12 through 6-15 below illustrate the bottleneck at the intersection of I-77 and I-485 (South). Table 6-13 shows the average speed of trucks during the peak period compared to the average speed during the off-peak period.
Table 6-13: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-77 at I-485 (South) Bottleneck Road Peak Average Speed (mph) Off-Peak Average Speed (mph) I-485 North 54.1 59.0 I-485 South 39.0 59.5 I-77 North 37.6 55.5 I-77 South 52.4 59.6 Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015 Note: October 2015 (Peak hours: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM & 5:00 PM- 7:00 PM)
Figures 6-12, 6-13, 6-14 and 6-15 show the average speed per hour for each October 2015 weekday. As can clearly be seen, at each segment speeds decline during the PM peak period with speeds
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-15
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions decreasing in the AM along I-77 north. The substantial declines in speeds along I-485 south during the PM peak and I-77 north during the AM peak can be seen in Figures 6-13 and 6-14, respectively.
Figure 6-12: I-485 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-13: I-485 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-16
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-14: I-77 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-15: I-77 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
I-85 AT I-485 (WEST) BOTTLENECK Table 6-14 and Figures 6-16 through 6-19 below illustrate the bottleneck at the intersection of I-85 and I-485 (West). Table 6-14 shows the average speed of trucks during the peak period compared to the average speed during the off-peak period. Clearly I-85 south and I-485 show the largest disparity between peak and off-peak periods.
Table 6-14: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-85 at I-485 (West) Bottleneck Road Peak Average Speed (mph) Off-Peak Average Speed (mph) I-85 North 52.8 59.2 I-85 South 47.2 57.5 I-485 North 60.9 61.6 I-485 South 46.2 61.2 Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015 Note: October 2015 (Peak hours: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM & 5:00 PM- 7:00 PM)
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-17
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figures 6-16, 6-17, 6-18 and 6-19 show the average speed per hour for each October 2015 weekday. Truck freight bottlenecks occur at this location in the AM along I-85 north and I-485 south with PM speeds declining along I-85 south.
Figure 6-16: I-85 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
70 60 50 40 30
Speed (mph) Speed 20 10 0 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 1:00 AM 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 12:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Hour
Average Speed
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-17: I-85 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-18
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-18: I-485 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-19: I-485 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
I-77 NEAR LAKE NORMAN BOTTLENECK Table 6-15 and Figures 6-20 and 6-21 below illustrate the bottleneck along I-77 near Lake Norman between exits 23 and 25. Speeds decrease significantly during both the AM and PM peak periods as can be seen in Figure 6-20 and Figure 6-21.
Table 6-15: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-77 near Lake Norman Bottleneck Road Peak Average Speed (mph) Off-Peak Average Speed (mph) I-77 North 33.1 47.9 I-77 South 24.9 45.1 Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015 Note: October 2015 (Peak hours: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM & 5:00 PM- 7:00 PM)
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-19
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-20: I-77 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-21: I-77 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
I-77 AT I-85 BOTTLENECK Table 6-16 and Figures 6-22 through 6-25 below illustrate the bottleneck at the intersection of I-77 and I-85. Table 6-16 shows the average speed of trucks during the peak period compared to the average speed during the off-peak period. Clearly I-77 south and I-85 north show the largest disparity between peak and off-peak periods.
Table 6-16: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-77 at I-85 Bottleneck Road Peak Average Speed (mph) Off-Peak Average Speed (mph) I-77 North 51.6 55.5 I-77 South 43.2 56.5 I-85 North 47.9 54.3 I-85 South 53.5 57.1 Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015 Note: October 2015 (Peak hours: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM & 5:00 PM- 7:00 PM)
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-20
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figures 6-22, 6-23, 6-24 and 6-25 show the average speed per hour for each October 2015 weekday. Truck freight bottlenecks occur at this location in the AM along I-77 south and I-77 north and I-85 north within the PM peak period.
Figure 6-22: I-77 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-23: I-77 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-21
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-24: I-85 North Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-25: I-85 South Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
I-77 AT I-277/US HWY 74 BOTTLENECK Table 6-17 and Figures 6-26 through 6-30 below illustrate the bottleneck at I-77 at I-277/US Hwy 74. Table 6-17 shows the average speed of trucks during the peak period compared to the average speed during the off-peak period. The specific links with the most significant differences between peak and off peak truck speeds throughout the day are I-77 north, I-77 south and I-277 north.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-22
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Table 6-17: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—I-77 at I-277/US Hwy 74 Bottleneck Road Peak Average Speed (mph) Off-Peak Average Speed (mph) I-77 North 43.5 53.9 I-77 South 30.5 44.3 I-277 North 34.8 41.7 I-277 South 37.9 39.7 US Hwy 74 29.2 30.6 Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015 Note: October 2015 (Peak hours: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM & 5:00 PM- 7:00 PM)
Figures 6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29 and 6-30 show the average speed per hour for each October 2015 weekday. Truck freight bottlenecks occur at this location in the AM along I-77 south, I-277 north and I-277 south. Within the PM peak period significant truck slowdowns are seen at I-77 north, I-77 south, I-277 north and I-277 south. US 74 shows that there are periods throughout the day where speeds range significantly, pointing toward an issue with reliability along the segment. Note: there is a gap in the data between 2am and 4am, where presumably no truck speeds were recorded.
Figure 6-26: I-77 North Weekday Average Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-23
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-27: I-77 South Weekday Average Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-28: I-277 North Weekday Average Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Figure 6-29: I-277 South Weekday Average Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-24
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-30: US 74 Weekday Average Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
US HIGHWAY 74 AT US HIGHWAY 601 BOTTLENECK The speed limit along US 74 in Union County (NC) at US 601 is 45mph and the data show that speeds are significantly less throughout the day, in both peak and off-peak periods. Table 6-18 and Figure 6- 31 illustrate these observations.
Table 6-18: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—US 74 at US 601 Bottleneck Road Peak Average Speed (mph) Off-Peak Average Speed (mph) US Hwy 74 & US Hwy 601 27.3 26.9 Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015 Note: October 2015 (Peak hours: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM & 5:00 PM- 7:00 PM)
Figure 6-31: US 74 at US 601 Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-25
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
US HIGHWAY 29 BOTTLENECK US 29 in Rowan County south of I-85 near the Carolina Mall has also been shown as a significant truck bottleneck. The speed limit is 45mph and the data show that speeds are significantly less throughout the day, in both peak and off-peak periods. Table 6-19 and Figure 6-32 illustrate these observations.
Table 6-19: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—US 29 Bottleneck Road Peak Average Speed (mph) Off-Peak Average Speed (mph) US Hwy 29 23.0 23.9 Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015 Note: October 2015 (Peak hours: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM & 5:00 PM- 7:00 PM)
Figure 6-32: US 29 Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
US HIGHWAY 21 BOTTLENECK US 21 in York County (SC) west of I-77 in Rock Hill at Cherry Road has been observed as being a truck bottleneck with very low truck speeds. The speed limit is 40mph and the data show that speeds are significantly less throughout the day, in both peak and off-peak periods. Table 6-20 and Figure 6-33 illustrate these observations.
Table 6-20: Weekday Peak / Off-peak Average Truck Speeds—US 21 Bottleneck Road Peak Average Speed (mph) Off-Peak Average Speed (mph) US Hwy 21 17.7 18.6 Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015 Note: October 2015 (Peak hours: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM & 5:00 PM- 7:00 PM)
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-26
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-33: US 21 Weekday Average Truck Speed per Hour
Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), October 2015
Identifying truck speeds during weekday and high volume time periods can help determine the truck bottlenecks in Charlotte, North Carolina. Interstate bottlenecks indicate a far more predictable pattern with slower speeds occurring during typical peak hours. Off-interstate bottlenecks vary a little more in speed fluctuations, indicating that these tend to be high volume truck areas throughout the workday hours, often with further dips in speed during peak travel periods. Identifying these bottleneck locations and time-of-day speeds can help determine where there may be freight inefficiencies.
The CRTPO identified the following corridors as some of the most congested in North Carolina which have been verified by this analysis:
• I-485 in southern Mecklenburg County • I-77 through Mecklenburg County and southern Iredell County • US 74 in Mecklenburg and Union Counties. • I-77 and I-485 near Pineville • I-77 near Lake Norman • I-85 at I-485 near the Charlotte-Douglas Airport
6.1.6 TRUCK PARKING The amount of hours truck drivers can be behind the wheel dictate, in large part, the demand for parking. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) instituted revised hours-of-service regulations in December 2011 (amended December 2014) instituting mandatory ‘down time.’ Adequate truck parking facilities assist drivers in satisfying these requirements without parking on highway shoulders, ramps, or other inappropriate locations. The inventory of truck parking facilities includes public rest areas and privately operated truck stops. An inventory of truck parking facilities in the study area and their capacities was conducted. Since peak truck parking times are in overnight hours, sample spot count of truck parking utilization were taken to determine the adequacy of the parking supply.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-27
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
The Greater Charlotte Region study area for this project is defined as a 14-county bi-state region which includes Anson, Cabarrus, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Stanly and Union Counties in North Carolina and Chester, Lancaster, Union and York Counties in South Carolina. Publically available information was used to inventory truck parking capacity and a survey to determine utilization.
INVENTORY An inventory of the private truck stops and public rest areas includes the location, parking capacity and amenities for each facility. Private truck stops were identified through http://www.truckstops.com/ and amenities identified through the 2015 National Truck Stop Directory. The inventory of spaces was conducted through field surveys and using Google Earth satellite images.
Public rest areas, welcome centers and visitor centers with truck parking have been identified through http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/restareas/ for North Carolina which includes the location, truck parking capacity and amenities. For South Carolina, facilities were identified through http://www.scdot.org/getting/restareamap.aspx. Capacity and amenities were identified through field views. The truck parking inventory is shown in Figure 6-34.
DEMAND The estimated demand for truck parking was completed using a spot count during overnight peak utilization. Field data collection was conducted on two weekday overnight periods during the month of August 2015. Peak parking demand/utilization and the capacity or lack thereof was estimated. Truck parking utilization is shown in Table 6-21 and Figure 6-35.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-28
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-34: Greater Charlotte Region’s Truck Parking Facilities (2015)
Source: http://www.truckstops.com/, 2015 National Truck Stop Directory, http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/restareas/, http://www.scdot.org/getting/restareamap.aspx, CDM Smith
Table 6-21: Truck Parking Utilization (2015)
Truck Parking Trucks Facility Name County State Utilization Capacity (spaces) Parked Union Grove Quick Stop (BP) Iredell NC 16 16 100% Rest Area: I-77 Southbound Iredell NC 10 10 100% Rest Area: I-40, Westbound Catawba NC 20 20 100% Rest Area: I-40, Eastbound Catawba NC 20 20 100% Country Market #9 (Exxon) Lincoln NC 40 29 73% Rest Area: I-77 Northbound Iredell NC 16 16 100% Wilco Hess #0357 Iredell NC 90 88 98% Rest Area: I-77 Southbound Iredell NC 16 16 100% Wilco Hess #0364 Rowan NC 70 70 100% Love's Travel Stop #507 Rowan NC 85 84 99% Pilot Travel Center #056 Cabarrus NC 48 48 100%
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-29
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Truck Parking Trucks Facility Name County State Utilization Capacity (spaces) Parked Rest Area: I-85 Southbound Cabarrus NC 22 22 100% Rest Area: I-85 Northbound Cabarrus NC 21 21 100% Pilot Travel Center #275 Mecklenburg NC 24 24 100% Welcome Center: I-77 Northbound Mecklenburg NC 16 16 100% Welcome Center: I-77 Southbound York SC 14 14 100% Love's Travel Stop #333 Lancaster SC 50 50 100% Southern Pride (Valero) Lancaster SC 20 15 75% Wilco Hess #0906 Lancaster SC 30 30 100% Crenco Auto/Truck Stop #8 (Exxon) Lancaster SC 40 32 80% Rest Area: I-77 Southbound Chester SC 14 14 100% Rest Area: I-77 Northbound Chester SC 14 14 100% Grand Central Station (Shell) Chester SC 120 120 100% Wilco Hess #0932 Chester SC 120 120 100% Wilco Hess #0383 Union NC 50 49 98% BP #15 Union NC 42 42 100% Quik Chek #5 (Citgo) Stanley NC 12 5 42% Sam's Mart (Shell) Cabarrus NC 15 4 27%
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-30
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-35: Greater Charlotte Region’s Truck Stops Utilization (2015)
Source: CDM Smith
6.2 INTERMODAL FACILITIES National Highway System (NHS) Intermodal Connectors are roads that provide access between major intermodal facilities and the other four subsystems making up the National Highway System. They are designated by the FHWA and are shown in Table 6-22 for those located in the Charlotte region.
Table 6-22: NHS Intermodal Connectors
CONNECTOR FACILITY FACILITY TYPE CONNECTOR DESCRIPTION LENGTH ID Charlotte/Douglas S.R. 1490: from US 521 to airport Airport 1.47 NC4A International Airport entrance NC 160 (West Blvd): from US 521 Charlotte/Douglas to SR 1177 (Yorkmont Rd); SR Airport 2 NC4A International Airport 1177 from NC 160 to airport entrance CSX Freight Intermodal Truck/Rail Hovis Rd and NC 16 between I-85 1.9 NC3R Facility - Charlotte Facility and the Terminal Entrance
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-31
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
CONNECTOR FACILITY FACILITY TYPE CONNECTOR DESCRIPTION LENGTH ID N. Brevard St and Caldwell Norfolk Southern Corp. - Truck/Rail St/Parkwood Ave between I-277 1 NC7R Charlotte Facility and the Terminal Entrance Petroleum Pipeline Truck/Pipeline NC 27 between I-85 and SR 3.6 NC2L Terminal - Charlotte Terminal 1784(Mount Holly Rd)
Other intermodal facilities are not designated by FHWA, but are critical to the movement of goods throughout the region. These include facilities for multimodal distribution and warehousing, bulk transfer, freight consolidation, etc. Figure 6-36 illustrates these locations, of which a majority are located closest to the City of Charlotte.
Figure 6-36: Greater Charlotte Region’s Intermodal Facilities
Source: National Transportation Atlas Database, 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-32
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
6.3 FREIGHT RAIL Twenty-five freight railroad companies operate North Carolina’s 3,379-mile rail system. Two freight railroad companies operate over 70 percent of the state system via major/mainline routes and service the tri-county Metropolitan Planning Area. CSX Transportation (CSXT) operates 34 percent of the system. CSXT’s east-west route connects Wilmington and Charlotte to Atlanta and New Orleans. Norfolk Southern (NS) operates 43 percent of North Carolina’s rail system. NS’ north-south route connects the Northeast and Midwest to Atlanta via Danville, Virginia; Greensboro; and Charlotte.
2,800 of the 3,300 miles of rail lines throughout North Carolina are owned by private freight railroads. There are a total of 22 active freight railroad companies operating in North Carolina today: two active Class I railroads, 12 active short line railroads, and eight active railroads that specialize in switching and terminal services. In addition, there are two freight companies (the Red Springs & Northern Railroad and the Virginia & Southern Railroad) that own track in North Carolina but are not currently operating in the state.
North Carolina has nearly 3,300 miles of track used by passenger and freight trains alike, while the freight rail system in South Carolina totals 2,378 miles of operations. Within the study area, there is a combined 1,042 miles of track as listed in Table 6-23 and shown on Figure 6-37.
Table 6-23: Regional Railroad Ownership
Railroad Owner Miles
Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway 50.8 Alexander Railroad Company 13.6 Carolina Coastal Railway 13.5 CSXT 335.0 NCDOT 1.0 Norfolk Southern 593.7 Piedmont & Northern Railway 15.5 Winston-Salem Southbound Railway 42.10 Lancaster & Chester 66.8 Others/Unknown 10.0 Source: National Transportation Atlas Database, 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-33
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-37: Greater Charlotte Region’s Rail Network
Source: National Transportation Atlas Database, 2015
6.3.1 RAIL SERVICE AMTRAK North Carolina is currently served by twelve Amtrak trains over three routes. These routes operate on lines owned by North Carolina Railroad, NS, and CSXT, thus requiring an operating agreement to share operations with freight. North Carolina service consists of the following daily services, each offering round trips with multiple stops. Those in bold are routes that serve the project study area.
• Piedmont – Raleigh/Greensboro/Charlotte • Carolinian – New York/Washington DC/Richmond/Raleigh/Charlotte • Silver Star – New York/Columbia/Tampa/Miami, • Crescent – New York/Charlotte/Greenville/New Orleans
Similarly, South Carolina is currently served by eight Amtrak trains over three routes. These routes operate on lines owned by Norfolk Southern and CSXT and also require an operations agreement. South Carolina service consists of the following daily services, each offering round trips with multiple stops. Those in bold are routes that serve the project study area.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-34
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
• Silver Star – New York/Columbia/Tampa/Miami, • Silver Meteor – New York/Charleston/Miami, • Palmetto – New York/Charleston/Savannah, and • Crescent – New York/Charlotte/Greenville/New Orleans
Stations serving the various Amtrak routes are all located within North Carolina. The stations and routes they serve are listed below.
• Salisbury – Carolinian, Piedmont, Crescent • Kannapolis – Carolinian, Piedmont • Charlotte - Carolinian, Piedmont, Crescent • Gastonia - Crescent
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD (NCRR) North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) Company owns and manages a 317-mile corridor extending from the Port of Morehead City to Charlotte. NCRR was first chartered in 1849 by the North Carolina General Assembly and directed to build a railroad between Charlotte and Goldsboro. The railroad was developed from the beginning with both public and private investment in order to connect the eastern and western parts of North Carolina and promote development along the rail line.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN (NS) In North Carolina, NS operates approximately 1,240 miles of track, while in South Carolina it operates approximately 68 route miles. The NS Main line is the primary corridor paralleling I-85 through the central part of the State connecting Charlotte and Greensboro with Atlanta, GA (within the NCRR corridor through an operating and maintenance agreement). On average, 35 freight trains per day operate along this line. There are five other NS lines within the study area. They are:
• L line: operating from Mooresville, NC to Winston Salem, NC • O line: operating from Charlotte, NC to Mooresville, NC • R line: operating from Charlotte, NC, through Rock Hill, SC, to Columbia, SC. • SB line: operating from Shelby, NC to Blacksburg, SC • SB line: operating between Newport, SC, through Rock Hill, SC to Lancaster, SC.
NS also operates an intermodal facility in at the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport and two bulk transfer terminals located just south of Charlotte.
CSX TRANSPORTATION CSXT operates approximately 1,090 route miles of track in North Carolina, while in South Carolina it operates approximately 1,270 route miles. Within North Carolina there are three primary corridors. The main CSXT corridor is the SF line that is an east-west line from Johnson City, TN through Shelby, NC and Lincolnton, NC to Charlotte, NC through Monroe, NC to Hamlet, NC (SF Line). The other two lines are:
• SFE line: operating from Charlotte, NC to Terrell, NC (serving the Marshall Power Plant)
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-35
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
• SG line: operating from Monroe, NC to Chester, SC
CSXT also operates the Charlotte Intermodal Terminal and Pinoca Yard within the study area.
SHORT LINE RAILROADS Short lines play a vital role to the Class I railroads and local economy. Within North Carolina, there are twenty short line railroads operating approximately 950 miles of track. One of the more prominent short lines is the Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway (ACWR) that operates from Charlotte, NC to Mint Hill, NC to Star, NC. Other short lines are:
• Alexander Railroad (ARC) • Carolina Coastal Railway (CLNA) • Caldwell County Railroad (CWCY) • High Point, Thomasville & Denton Railroad (HPTD) • Piedmont & Northern Railway (PNRW) • Winston-Salem Southbound Railway (WSS).
Within South Carolina, there are ten short line railroads. Of the ten, Lancaster and Chester Railway Company (LC) is the only one within the Study area. They operate approximately 60 miles of rail line within four counties – between Chester, Kershaw, Lancaster, and York.
6.3.2 KEY CORRIDORS AND FACILITIES Within the greater Charlotte Region there are a number of key corridors and facilities. Both NS and CSXT have key rail corridors and intermodal yards. For NS, the Main Line operating through Kannapolis, Charlotte and Gastonia serving the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport’s Intermodal Yard is one of the busier corridors along the east coast. The CSXT SE Line connects to the Port of Wilmington and Hamlet Yard. Figure 6-38 shows the regional Class I rail volumes.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-36
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-38: Regional Class I Rail Freight Volumes (2014)
Source: NCDOT
6.3.3 FREIGHT RAIL BOTTLENECKS AND CONSTRAINTS All across North Carolina, freight rail bottlenecks constrain the freight and passenger rail operations for not only Class I railroads, but Amtrak and short line railroads (Figure 6-39). Situations such as the Charlotte Junction Wye and the ADM rail crossing affect the operations and efficiency of freight movement within the study area and region.
A bottleneck that currently exists along both the NS Main line and the CSXT SF line is located next to the ADM Mill in downtown Charlotte. The railroad diamond provides a direct crossover between both rail lines, thus affecting the operations of both NS and CSXT freight operations. NCDOT Rail Division has developed plans for improving the railroad diamond; however, there are no existing funds available to improve the operational deficiency.
The Charlotte Junction Wye, located west of downtown Charlotte, is the connection between the NS Main line and the R line. Due to the configuration of the wye, freight trains heading northbound on the R line do not have direct access to the southbound Main line. Similarly, freight trains heading
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-37
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions northbound on the Main line do not have direct access to the southbound R line. The inability to provide direct connections creates a bottleneck for NS freight trains.
The current operations of the Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway (ACW) corridor create bottlenecks within CSXT’s yard in North Davidson. ACW is working with NCDOT Rail Division to enhance the conditions of their infrastructure, improve safety, and improve operating efficiency through upgrades to several bridges.
The CSXT terminal operation at their Charlotte’s northwest yard bottlenecks local roadway networks due to the length and amount of switching that occurs. Due to the lengthy time it takes to couple rail cars, numerous existing at-grade crossings are closed and general automobiles are required to find detours and pedestrians climb over the rail cars.
Figure 6-39: North Carolina Rail Bottlenecks
Source: NCDOT and WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-38
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
6.3.4 CURRENT RAIL FREIGHT CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS There are several projects that have been identified to assist the movement of rail freight within the region (see Figure 6-40). This is a preliminary list of projects that have been identified. Through the plan development process, additional projects may be identified for rail freight in addition to projects that are currently in the programming process for highways that may assist with roadway freight. Other roadway projects may all result from this planning process.
Figure 6-40: North Carolina Freight Capacity Improvement Projects
Source: NCDOT
Over the past few years, NCDOT has been investing in upgrading the state’s railways through a series of railroad and highway improvements known as the Piedmont Improvement Program (PIP). Those improvements will enhance the operations of freight and passenger rail, create safer travel, enhance the reliability, and better connect the economic regions between Charlotte and Raleigh.
These projects are largely funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) awarded North Carolina a $546.5 million grant in 2010. Of the total $546.5 million, $520 million goes directly to PIP and the remainder is improving reliability of existing freight and passenger service from Raleigh to Virginia. By implementing the PIP projects (Figure 6-
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-39
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
41), North Carolina will be able to add two additional Amtrak trips between Raleigh and Charlotte-- making it a total of five daily trips. All PIP projects will be complete in 2017.
Figure 6-41: Piedmont Improvement Program Projects
Source: NCDOT
PIP IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN SALISBURY AND KANNAPOLIS • Salisbury to Kannapolis Improvements – The project involves constructing approximately 11 miles of second track within Rowan County. The project will also grade separate the railroad tracks over Kimball Road, upgrade 6 at-grade crossings, and close 6 existing at-grade crossings. • Klumac Road Grade Separation – Klumac Road will be grade separated with the tracks over a small section of a relocated Klumac Road. • Peeler Road Grade Separation – Peeler Road will be relocated to the north with a grade separation over the tracks and U.S. 29, with ramps to provide connection to U.S. 29.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-40
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
PIP IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN HARRISBURG AND CHARLOTTE • Harrisburg to Charlotte Improvements – The project involves constructing approximately 12 miles of second track and realigning curves within Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County. The project will also grade separate the railroad tracks over the future extension of Mallard Creek Church Road and upgrade 3 at-grade crossings. • Pharr Mill Road Grade Separation – Pharr Mill Road will be grade separated over the tracks and close 1 at-grade crossing. • Roberta Road Grade Separation – Roberta Road extension will be grade separated over the tracks and close 2 at-grade crossings. • Caldwell Park Drive – Caldwell Park Drive will be extended for approximately 1 mile into Mecklenburg County in order to provide an alternative access to Caldwell Road and N.C. 49, thus closing 1 public and 3 private at-grade crossings. • Caldwell Road Grade Separation – Caldwell Road will be grade separated over the tracks. • Grier Road Grade Separation – Grier Road will be extended with a grade separation over the tracks and close 1 at-grade crossing.
PIP IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN CHARLOTTE • Charlotte Locomotive and Railcar Maintenance Facility – Charlotte Locomotive and Railcar Maintenance Facility will be a new state-owned facility to serve the Piedmont and Carolinian trains during layovers in Charlotte. The facility will include a connection to the NS Main Line, construct 2 service tracks, and an office building for Amtrak crews and maintenance employees.
NCDOT STIP IMPROVEMENTS One specific section of the NCRR corridor that handles over 30 NS freight trains and eight passenger rail trains is at the existing Sugar Creek Road at-grade crossing. As freight movement increases over the next decade, along with additional passenger rail trips, this major thoroughfare at-grade crossing will create a roadway network within a section of Charlotte that is seeing growth, especially with the addition of the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) Blue Line light rail extension north to UNC- Charlotte. Since this section of the NCRR corridor is also part of the federally-designated Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR), grade separating Sugar Creek Road with the NCRR corridor, as well as closing the crossing at East Craighead Road, will improve safety for vehicles and rail, reduce the risk of vehicle/train collisions, and reduce traffic congestion in the area.
6.3.5 FREIGHT RAIL SAFETY There are over 1,500 identified public and private at-grade rail crossings in the region (1,158 in NC and 343 in SC) and are shown in Figure 6-42.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-41
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-42: Greater Charlotte Region’s At-Grade Rail Crossings
Source: NCDOT and SCDOT
In 2014, there were 63 rail grade crossing collisions between trains and motor vehicles at 53 locations between the years 2012 and 2014. There were five locations with more than one incident which could point to safety issues (Figure 6-43), and should be the focus of potential safety improvements.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-42
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-43: Greater Charlotte’s Region At-Grade Rail Crossing Collisions (2012 through 2014)
Source: NCDOT and SCDOT
6.3.6 FREIGHT RAIL SECURITY The U.S. Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command’s Transportation Engineering Agency has identified the national Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET). The STRACNET comprises a 32,000 mile interconnected network of rail corridors and the connector lines most important to national defense. Preserving these rail lines is critical for military equipment, supplies, and personnel. The Greater Charlotte Region’s STRACTNET system is shown on Figure 6-44.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-43
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-44: Greater Charlotte Region’s STRACNET Map
Source: Federal Railroad Administration
6.3.7 RAIL POLICIES AND ACTIONS The NCDOT State Rail Plan lays out Governor McCrory’s 25-year vision for the state. A summary of the important components of this vision related to rail freight for the Charlotte region is shown in Table 6-24.
Table 6-24: Governor’s 25-Year Vision and the State Rail Plan
Regional Solution Next Steps • Construct siding extension at Stouts in Union County • Support the Phase III Expansion of CSXT’s Charlotte Improve highway connections and seek Intermodal Terminal economically competitive rail service • Evaluate improvements along the CSXT rail line between to inland ports in and around Charlotte Charlotte and Pembroke • Relocate the Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railroad in Mecklenburg County
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-44
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Regional Solution Next Steps • Construct rail spur at Piedmont Triad International Airport Improve highway connections and • Convert NS “Roundhouse” property adjacent to expand airfreight and rail capabilities Greensboro Intermodal facility into parking and container to support the Triad Logistics Hub storage • Provide access to the 1,000-acre I-85 Corporate Center in Ensure infrastructure plans recognize Davidson County the development of megasites in the • Conduct a study to identify infrastructure needs required region and support their ability to to support industries targeted for the 1,800-acre attract new businesses in targeted Chatham-Randolph Megasite industry clusters. • Support access to the Project Legacy Megasite in Union County
6.4 AVIATION According to the North Carolina 2008 Statewide Logistics Plan, as of 2006, the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport carried approximately 42 percent of North Carolina’s 336 million pounds of air cargo carried each year. Since then the airport has developed a master plan that places emphasis on the further development of air cargo services as a priority. Norfolk-Southern (NS) recently relocated their intermodal facility from uptown Charlotte to the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. Within the planning area, there are two commercial service airports and twelve general aviation airports (Figure 6-45).
Commercial service airports are those that are publicly owned and have at least 2,500 passenger boardings each calendar year and receive scheduled passenger service5. General aviation airports are public-use airports that do not have scheduled service or have less than 2,500 annual passenger boardings6.
5 FAA 49 USC §47102(7) 6 FAA 49 USC §47102(8)
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-45
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Current Conditions
Figure 6-45: Greater Charlotte Region’s Public Airports
Source: Federal Aviation Administration
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 6-46
7. FREIGHT COMMODITY FLOW DEMAND
This section presents an overview of freight flows moving to, from, and within Charlotte, NC by mode and commodity type. The information used in this analysis comes from the newly published Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) version 4.0, which is produced by a partnership of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). The FAF data set reports the tonnage and value shipped of 42 commodity groups (following the Standard Classification of Transported Goods System) for 2012. FAF also normally contains 30-year forecasts; however, this part has not been published yet for the just now available 2012 data. The previous edition of FAF, covering the base year 2007, was also analyzed to identify key trends and describe how freight flows have changed over the intervening five years. It is important to note that FAF data is compiled from many different freight data sets and modeling processes; it incorporates the federal Commodity Flow Survey of 2012 (CFS, which is a stratified random sample of freight traffic undertaken by the Bureau of Census), but utilizes other inputs as well. Nonetheless, FAF represents the most comprehensive multimodal freight data set publically available. The modal coverage in FAF is defined as:
• Multiple modes and mail: includes any reported combination of two or more modes, and all parcel and express shipments • Air (including truck-air); includes air not in combination with any other modes except truck • Rail: includes rail not in combination with any other modes • Truck: includes truck not in combination with any other modes • Water: includes water not in combination with any other modes • Pipeline: includes pipeline not in combination with any other modes • Other and Unknown
In FAF, specific coverage of the CCOG region is limited to its North Carolina counties, which correspond to the portion of the Charlotte Combined Statistical Area (CSA) that lies in in North Carolina. This area is composed of the following ten counties: Iredell, Rowan, Lincoln, Cleveland, Gaston, Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Stanly, Union, and Anson. Hereafter we refer to this as the Charlotte region (FAF has coverage of South Carolina, but activity in the CCOG region is not broken out).
In terms of tonnage, the Charlotte region receives around twice as much freight as it originates. In 2012 it originated 12.6 million tons and received 24.3 million tons. A large part of this imbalance is caused by inbound flows of natural gas through pipelines supplying the city’s energy needs, as can be seen from the prominent pipeline activity in Figure 7-1. Another contributor to this imbalance is the 2.8 million tons received by rail. The ‘within’ category in this figure considers shipments that have an origin and destination in the Charlotte region. These shipments are overwhelmingly transported by truck because of the short distances involved. This category is the largest in terms of tonnage, but the smallest in terms of value. Overall, from this data it appears that Charlotte receives higher value freight (per ton) than it originates, which is consistent with the region being a leading population and consumption center. In addition, this figure begins to show the very different activity profile obtained
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand from a value versus a tonnage perspective – a point that arises again below in discussion of commodity traffic.
Figure 7-1: Summary Freight Flows (2012)
Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
Total tonnages for 2012 in the Charlotte region are down in some categories since the pre-recession year of 2007. Figure 7-2 shows how tonnages within the region are down considerably from 49 million to 30 million, while tonnages to and from the region have stayed roughly constant (originated tonnages have decreased by 860,000 and delivered tonnages have increased by 3.1 million). The economic recession beginning in 2008 had a large negative impact on freight flows all over the country, and is likely to have been chiefly responsible for the drop-off in Charlotte volume. As shown further below, commodities associated with construction activity (gravel and nonmetallic minerals) account for a large portion of the local tonnage, and the construction sector was one of the hardest hit in the recession. Consumer products are significant in delivered tonnage and its increase is apt to be related to population growth.
Figure 7-2: Tonnage Comparison (2007 to 2012) 90,000 Within Terminated Originated 80,000
70,000
60,000 47,878 50,000 29,558
40,000
Thousands of of Tons Thousands 30,000 21,139 24,261 20,000
10,000 13,473 12,614 - 2007 2012 Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-2
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand
Tables 7-1 and 7-2 provide modal detail for the changes observed from 2007 to 2012. In terms of tonnages, the most significant change was the increasing use of pipelines to move natural gas to Charlotte. This pipeline development has paralleled growth in the natural gas sector, particularly from the increasing use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling – the so-called “fracking” technologies. There are plans to continue expanding pipeline capacity in the region to continue taking advantage of cheap and abundant natural gas. In 2007 just 680 thousand tons of natural gas were delivered to Charlotte. This increased by more than thirteen times in just 5 years, to 9.1 million in 2012. This has more than off-set modal decreases in rail and trucking.
In terms of mode share, heavy activity in the local market combined with the growth of the pipeline mode has pushed down the relative tonnage share of truck from 90 percent in 2007 to 76 percent in 2012. Rail mode share did not decrease as much because it declined less in the aggregate, only losing 1 percentage point during this time. The multiple modes & mail mode category, which includes rail intermodal as well as small package freight, saw the second strongest modal growth after pipelines. This agrees with other evidence that points to the importance of and investment in rail intermodal in the region.
Table 7-1: Modal Comparison of Tonnages (2007 to 2012)
Originated Terminated Within Total 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 Total Thousands of Tons Air 2 2 5 6 - - 7 8 Multiple modes & mail 768 2,682 1,198 1,099 36 20 2,002 3,801 Other and Unknown 557 11 122 - 215 - 894 11 Pipeline - - 682 9,140 - - 682 9,140 Rail 533 184 3,731 2,755 527 70 4,791 3,009 Truck 11,613 9,735 15,401 11,261 47,100 29,468 74,114 50,464 Grand Total 13,473 12,614 21,139 24,261 47,878 29,558 82,490 66,433 Modal Share of Tons Air 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Multiple modes & mail 6% 21% 6% 5% 0% 0% 2% 6% Other and Unknown 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Pipeline 0% 0% 3% 38% 0% 0% 1% 14% Rail 4% 1% 18% 11% 1% 0% 6% 5% Truck 86% 77% 73% 46% 98% 100% 90% 76% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
In terms of value, the modal share for trucking and rail changed by a smaller proportion. Truck modal share decreased by just 5 percentage points, essentially all of it occurring in the local market. Originated volume by truck grew by 30 percent in value terms during this period. The multiple modes & mail category saw its modal share rise by half, adding 5 percentage points through greater volumes of terminated and local traffic – presumably from inbound rail intermodal traffic and perhaps local package delivery. With regards to value trends, it is worth noting that FAF does not adjust volumes for inflation. One dollar in 2007 had the same purchasing power as $1.11 dollars in 2012, according
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-3
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand to the CPI deflator of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nonetheless, the changes in the value of commodities moved are much larger than the inflation adjustments. Freight activity within the Charlotte region decreased 60 percent, from 51 billion dollars to 21 billion dollars. On the other hand, value originated and delivered increased moderately as expected, given economic growth and inflation.
Table 7-2: Modal Comparison of Values (2007 to 2012)
Originated Terminated Within Total 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 Total Millions of Dollars Air $47 $237 $151 $484 - - $198 $721 Multiple modes & $2,952 $3,724 $8,787 $11,253 $534 $786 $12,273 $15,781 mail Other & Unknown $1,530 $151 $193 - $795 - $2,518 $151 Pipeline - - $246 $1,963 - - $26 $1,963 Rail $221 $173 $1,724 $1,754 $77 $23 $2,022 $1,950 Truck $22,903 $29,780 36,037 35,973 49,974 $20,033 $108,914 $85,786 Grand Total $27,653 $34,083 $47,138 $51,427 $51,380 $20,842 $126,171 $106,352 Modal Share of Dollars Air 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Multiple modes & 11% 11% 19% 22% 1% 4% 10% 15% mail Other & Unknown 6% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% Pipeline 0% 0% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% Rail 1% 1% 4% 3% 0% 0% 2% 2% Truck 83% 87% 76% 70% 97% 96% 86% 81% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
To better understand how the freight transportation system serves the economy of Charlotte it is important to look at the commodities being moved. Figure 7-3 shows the top commodities in 2012 with type of flow detail (to, from and within) and Figure 7-4 shows the top commodities with modal detail. This perspective highlights the chief types of goods consumed and produced in the Charlotte region; results are shown in both tonnages and values. The figures have labels for the volumes of the most significant freight flows.
As indicated above, in terms of tonnage Charlotte consumes a significant quantity of natural gas (appearing under “coal n.e.c.” in the FAF data set, which includes energy products “not elsewhere classified”). Charlotte also is a major consumer of wood products, mixed freight, plastics, and other foodstuffs. Of the top commodities, many are mainly inbound to Charlotte. Commodities such as gravel, nonmetal mined products, waste/scrap, and gasoline are involved primarily in local trips within the region. In terms of value, the majority of the commodities are consumer goods that are delivered to the Charlotte area, including textiles, machinery, electronics, motor vehicles, and pharmaceuticals.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-4
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand
Figure 7-3: Top Commodities with Flow Type Detail (2012)
Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
The commodity ranking with modal detail is shown next below. For the top commodities by tonnage, the top mode is predominantly trucking, with the exception of cereal grains, wood products, and natural gas (coal n.e.c.) – the last transported by pipeline. The multiple modes category is responsible for around half of wood product tons, about 2.4 million; as an originated commodity, some of this may be exports of wood pellets. And finally, cereal grains are almost entirely transported by rail, and around half of basic chemicals are transported by rail. For the top commodities in terms of value, trucking again is the principal mode but the multiple modes category transports a relatively higher proportion of shipments. The air mode is used for a material proportion of shipments involving machinery, electronics, and pharmaceuticals; air transport by package carriers (such as UPS and FedEx) also is a component of multiple mode shipping.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-5
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand
Figure 7-4: Top Commodities with Mode Detail (2012)
Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
Another useful perspective is to consider the top commodities for each mode. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 show this information for values and tonnages respectively. (Blanks in the tables indicate numbers that were not reported in 2007, which can be due to data suppression in the 2007 FAF or from no traffic being found). The top five commodities for air represent almost 90 percent of all of the value moved by this mode. Of these, the top commodity, precision instruments, has seen spectacular growth over the past 5 years, growing at more than 80 percent during this period. Along with machinery and electronics - the second and third commodities for this mode – this group has represented an important growth market for the air mode.
Several of the top commodities of the multiple modes category also grew very quickly, at a double digit pace. These include machinery, pharmaceuticals and mixed freight commodities. The top five commodities for rail represent 80 percent of the value moved by this mode. In particular, basic chemicals represented 720 million dollars in shipments, and grew at an annual rate of 6 percent. Cereal grains by rail grew at a comparable rate. Rail in Charlotte appears to be used primarily to serve such specific industrial sectors. In contrast, the trucking mode supported a wider range of commodities, as can be seen in Table 7-3. Textiles/leather and mixed freight increased at a moderate
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-6
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand pace for this mode, while machinery, electronics, and motorized vehicles decreased, particularly machinery.
Table 7-3: Top Commodities in Value by Mode (2007 to 2012)
Rate of Change Mode Rank Commodities $ in millions 2007 to 2012 1 Precision instruments $205 83% 2 Machinery $157 12% 3 Electronics $151 15% Air (include truck-air) 4 Pharmaceuticals $111 5 Articles-base metal $19 % of Modal Total 89% 1 Machinery $2,743 17% 2 Electronics $2,049 -7% 3 Pharmaceuticals $2,006 29% Multiple modes & mail 4 Textiles/leather $1,799 -1% 5 Mixed freight $1,540 22% % of Modal Total 64% 1 Basic chemicals $717 6% 2 Plastics/rubber $348 -9% 3 Cereal grains $277 7% Rail 4 Transport equip. $172 5 Mixed freight $55 19% % of Modal Total 80% 1 Textiles/leather $9,789 4% 2 Mixed freight $9,219 6% 3 Machinery $8,280 -10% Truck 4 Motorized vehicles $5,438 -4% 5 Electronics $5,418 -7% % of Modal Total 44% 1 Coal-n.e.c. $1,963 51% Pipeline % of Modal Total 100% Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
Looking at this same data but measuring by tonnage instead provides a different perspective. The top commodities by weight in multiple modes grew rapidly, especially wood products, which represents one of the markets that have seen the most growth over the past 5 years, more than doubling in tons. Gravel and waste/scrap are two of the top commodities for trucking; both are largely local activity that decreased at a double digit rate. On the other hand, gasoline shipments by truck have increased rapidly, and now constitute the fourth highest tonnages moved by truck – presumably due to population growth.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-7
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand
Table 7-4: Top Commodities in Tonnage by Mode (2007 to 2012)
Rate of Change Mode Rank Commodities Tons (000s) 2007 to 2012 1 Machinery 2 0% 2 Motorized vehicles 2 3 Electronics 1 -20% Air (include truck-air) 4 Precision instruments 1 5 Articles-base metal <1 % of Modal Total 100% 1 Wood prods. 2,446 121% 2 Textiles/leather 216 5% 3 Machinery 190 14% Multiple modes & mail 4 Plastics/rubber 177 -5% 5 Articles-base metal 125 9% % of Modal Total 83% 1 Cereal grains 1,043 -7% 2 Coal 782 3 Basic chemicals 399 -7% Rail 4 Plastics/rubber 262 -13% 5 Animal feed 78 % of Modal Total 85% 1 Gravel 10,091 -11% 2 Nonmetal min. prods. 6,820 -5% 3 Waste/scrap 3,847 -12% Truck 4 Gasoline 3,835 21% 5 Mixed freight 2,418 -2% % of Modal Total 54% 1 Coal-n.e.c. 9,140 68% Pipeline % of Modal Total 100% Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
As shown in Table 7-4, there has been a significant overall decline in tonnages shipped from and especially within the Charlotte region. To clarify the sources of these decreases, Table 7-5 ranks the top 10 declining commodities by tonnages and value. In terms of tonnage, the bulk of the declines in within or local flows come from gravel (-6.5 million tons), waste/scrap (-3.1 million tons), nonmetal mineral products (-1.4 million tons), animal feed (1 million tons), and machinery (1.1 million tons). These five declining goods represent 81 percent of all of the tonnage reductions from 2007 to 2012. In terms of value, tobacco products, machinery and misc. manufactured products represent the majority of declines.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-8
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand
Table 7-5: Top Declining Commodities (2007 to 2012)
Commodities Originated Terminated Within Total Top Declining Tonnages (000’) 2007 to 2012 Gravel -50 -1,531 -6,475 -8,057 Waste/scrap -746 -382 -3,091 -4,220 Nonmetal min. prods. -373 -1,345 -1,413 -3,131 Fertilizers -155 -598 -754 -1,508 Animal feed -152 -52 -1,032 -1,237 Basic chemicals -387 -493 -334 -1,213 Machinery 16 -84 -1,060 -1,126 Nonmetallic minerals -53 -320 -563 -935 Cereal grains -222 -603 -86 -911 Other foodstuffs -282 46 -506 -743 Top Declining Millions of Dollars 2007 to 2012 Tobacco prods. $37 $21 $-12,920 $-12,861 Machinery $2,384 $-430 $-6,326 $-4,217 Electronics $-54 $-1,958 $-1,375 $-3,240 Misc. mfg. prods. $742 $-31 $-3,008 $-2,298 Motorized vehicles $-771 $302 $-1,837 $-2,297 Basic chemicals $-406 $274 $-1,146 $-1,278 Articles-base metal $231 $275 $-1,472 $-946 Plastics/rubber $-1,222 $1,078 $-807 $-939 Newsprint/paper $-302 $-189 $-243 $-733 Other ag prods. $-459 $-59 $-137 $-654 Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
Table 7-6 ranks the top 10 growing commodities from 2007 to 2012. In terms of tonnages, most of the growth came from natural gas (coal n.e.c.), gasoline and wood products. In terms of value, the growth came from a wider range of commodities and directions as can be seen in the figure.
Table 7-6: Top Growing Commodities (2007 to 2012)
Commodities Originated Terminated Within Total Top Growing Tonnages (000’) 2007 to 2012 Coal-n.e.c. 76 8,103 -67 8,112 Gasoline -116 195 2,275 2,353 Wood prods. 2,214 -127 -185 1,902 Coal 0 781 -9 772 Fuel oils -30 -2 403 371 Pharmaceuticals 35 -2 71 104 Alcoholic beverages 27 -21 93 99 Furniture 10 -3 80 87 Textiles/leather 56 133 -115 76 Precision instruments 12 34 -1 46 Top Growing Millions of Dollars 2007 to 2012 Mixed freight $2,185 $802 $261 $3,248
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-9
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand
Commodities Originated Terminated Within Total Gasoline $-23 $184 $2,197 $2,357 Coal-n.e.c. $45 $1,897 $-33 $1,909 Precision instruments $482 $942 $23 $1,632 Textiles/leather $951 $1,137 $-701 $1,400 Other foodstuffs $217 $594 $261 $1,071 Furniture $410 $-156 $466 $720 Fuel oils $8 $3 $469 $480 Pharmaceuticals $983 $-38 $-588 $433 Transport equip. $186 $227 $-57 $356 Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
Figures 7-5 and 7-6 show Charlotte’s main trading partners in the U.S., in terms of tonnage. The dark shaded bubbles represent metropolitan areas while the lightly shaded bubbles represent “remainder of state” areas, containing all of the origins and destinations in particular states not included in the FAF metro areas. The locations that have the most trade with Charlotte are regional, mostly located in North Carolina and South Carolina. This includes Greenville, Raleigh-Durham, Charleston, Greensboro and the rest of the states. Other important states include Virginia and Georgia.
Figure 7-5: Top Origins of Shipments to Charlotte Region (Thousands of Tons) (2012)
Thousands % of Rank Origin City MSA of Tons Total 1 Greenville 7,408 17.4% 2 Rem. of South Carolina 4,918 11.5% 3 Charleston 3,150 7.4% 4 Rem. of North Carolina 2,727 6.4% 5 Greensboro 2,089 4.9% 6 Rem. of Virginia 1,976 4.6% 7 Savannah 1,133 2.7% 8 Rem. of South Dakota 1,035 2.4% 9 Atlanta 978 2.3% 10 St. Louis 842 2.0% Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-10
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand
Figure 7-6: Top Destination of Shipments from Charlotte Region (Thousands of Tons) (2012)
Thousands % of Rank Destination City MSA of Tons Total 1 Rem. of South Carolina 6,400 23.0% 2 Rem. of North Carolina 3,601 12.9% 3 Charleston 2,887 10.4% 4 Greensboro 2,499 9.0% 5 Greenville 1,655 5.9% 6 Rem. of Virginia 946 3.4% 7 Raleigh-Durham 895 3.2% 8 Atlanta 674 2.4% 9 Rem. of Georgia 560 2.0% 10 Rem. of Alabama 514 1.8%
Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
Figures 7-7 and 7-8 depict trading partners in value terms, and again the pattern is mainly regional.
The sources for inbound shipments are led by the southeastern distribution hub of Atlanta, and include major port locations such as New York, Charleston, Savannah, and Los Angeles. Destination markets for Charlotte shipping are predominantly in the Carolinas, followed by the neighboring states of Georgia and Virginia, and such large urban regions as Philadelphia and Chicago.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-11
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Commodity Flow Demand
Figure 7-7: Top Origins of Shipments to Charlotte Region (Millions of Dollars) (2012)
Millions % of Rank Origin City MSA of Dollars Total 1 Atlanta 5,047 6.7% 2 Rem. of North Carolina 4,804 6.4% 3 New York 4,344 5.8% 4 Rem. of South Carolina 4,187 5.6% 5 Charleston 3,489 4.7% 6 Savannah 3,149 4.2% 7 Greensboro 3,128 4.2% 8 Greenville 3,032 4.1% 9 Los Angeles 2,782 3.7% 10 Raleigh-Durham 2,357 3.2%
Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
Figure 7-8: Top Destination of Shipments from Charlotte Region (Millions of Dollars) (2012)
Millions of % of Rank Destination City MSA Dollars Total 1 Rem. of North Carolina 5,752 9.4% 2 Rem. of South Carolina 4,881 8.0% 3 Greensboro 3,717 6.1% 4 Greenville 2,910 4.7% 5 Rem. of Virginia 2,415 3.9% 6 Atlanta 2,146 3.5% 7 Charleston 1,832 3.0% 8 Raleigh-Durham 1,703 2.8% 9 Philadelphia 1,389 2.3% 10 Chicago 1,374 2.2%
Source: WSP|PB Analysis of FAF 4.0
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 7-12
8. NATIONAL AND STATE FREIGHT POLICIES
Freight policies guide the development and implementation of a freight plan. They provide the framework for the actions to be taken in order to understand and improve the movement of goods. Regional freight plans are guided by not only regional policies, but also those at the state and federal levels because these policies are sometimes tied to regulations that must be complied with or to funding sources which the region may want to take advantage of for freight related initiatives and projects.
8.1 NATIONAL FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE In June 2014, the National Freight Advisory Committee (NFAC) appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, published its recommendations for the development of the National Freight Strategic Plan (NFSP). The NFSP will implement and advance the National Freight Policy and Goals established under MAP-21 and continued under the FAST Act. The recommendations are categorized into three elements outlined in MAP-21:
1) Barriers: An assessment of statutory, regulatory, technological, institutional, financial, and other barriers to improved freight transportation performance (including opportunities for overcoming the barriers) 2) Best Practices: To improve the performance of the national freight network, and 3) Best Practices: To mitigate the impacts of freight movement on communities.
8.2 NATIONAL FREIGHT STRATEGIC PLAN The Draft NFSP was released in early 2016 with the public comment period ending April 28, 2016. The NFSP aims to present solutions and strategies to address the infrastructure, institutional, and financial bottlenecks that hinder the safe and efficient movement of goods. It also identifies many successful programs already in place to improve freight planning and investment; some examples include the Freight Analysis Framework, Every Day Counts (EDC) program, and the National Performance Management Research Data Set. The NFSP also identifies new programs, such as funding dedicated to freight projects and improved planning tools, which could help foster additional progress. The NFSP must be updated every 5 years, in order to revisit the assessment of the condition and performance of the freight network, identification of key highway bottlenecks, forecast future freight volumes, and assessment of barriers to improve freight transportation performance.
8.3 NATIONAL FREIGHT POLICY A National Freight Policy started in 1991 with the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) which required metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to take into consideration economic development and freight movement in long-range plans and short-range transportation improvement programs for their regions.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
It has long been recognized that freight issues transcend local, regional, state, and international boundaries. National level freight planning and policy is necessary to deal with issues such as the expansion of the Panama Canal or increasing American exports.
The current federal transportation bill, FAST places a major emphasis on the federal role in freight transportation and includes several provisions and funding mechanisms to facilitate freight transportation across state and national boundaries. The legislation mandates the identification of a National Multimodal Freight Network consisting of 41,000 miles of highways that are crucial to the movement of freight. This legislation is described in detail in Section 8.5.
8.4 KEY FEDERAL FREIGHT FUNDING AND FINANCING PROVISIONS Various federal grant/loan opportunities are available for freight-related projects and each program has its own unique requirements. A majority of the funding for freight-related improvements is administered through the USDOT, with additional funding from non-USDOT sources. The federal transportation infrastructure funding and financing programs are discussed in this section. Additional Funding programs are discussed in the FAST Act Section 8.5.
8.4.1 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program provides flexible funding for projects on any Federal-Aid highway, bridges on public roads, bridge and tunnel inspection and inspector training.7 Eligible freight projects also include bridge clearance increases to accommodate double-stack freight trains, capital costs of advanced truck stop electrification systems, freight transfer yards, and truck parking facilities.
8.4.2 CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding source to state and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.8 CMAQ money supports transportation projects that reduce mobile source emissions in areas designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as nonattainment or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards. Eligible activities include those related to rail intermodal freight transportation improvements. To be eligible for funding, the project must reduce emissions of
7 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, retrieved July 26, 2014 from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/freight.cfm 8 Ibid
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-2
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies criteria pollutants9 for which the area is in non-attainment. CMAQ funding is administered jointly by the FHWA and FTA and is allocated among the states based on the severity of their air quality status.
8.4.3 HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) supports projects that improve the safety of road infrastructure by adding capacity, improving alignment or operations, such as intersections, curves or making road improvements such as signing, pavement markings or adding rumble strips.
8.4.4 THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION ACT The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program provides federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects of national and regional significance. The goal of TIFIA financing is to leverage federal resources and stimulate private capital investment in transportation infrastructure by providing credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to projects of national or regional significance. TIFIA financing is available for large-scale public or private transportation projects. The program is aimed at large projects with a minimum value of approximately $50 million. The maximum TIFIA-financed portion is 33 percent and is administered by the USDOT’s TIFIA Joint Program Office.
8.4.5 RAILWAY-HIGHWAYS CROSSING (SECTION 130) PROGRAM Funds to improve rail-highway crossings are set-aside from the federal HSIP apportionment. The program provides funds for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings and is apportioned to states by formula.10
8.4.6 FEDERAL RAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008 This Act primarily addresses rail safety through regulations; it also authorizes grants for investing in rail technology, railroad safety infrastructure, rail grade crossing improvements, and education, subject to annual appropriations. Provisions under the Act are administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
8.4.7 RAIL LINE RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL GRANT PROGRAM Under this program, a state (or political subdivision such as a parish) is eligible for a grant from FRA for any construction project that improves the route or structure of a rail line and involves a lateral or vertical relocation of a portion of rail line, or mitigates the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor vehicle traffic flow, community quality of life, or economic development.
9 The criteria pollutants are nitrogen dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide 10 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, retrieved August 14, 2014 from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-3
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
8.4.8 RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program provides direct federal loans and loan guarantees to finance the development of railroad infrastructure11. Under this program, established in 1998, the FRA provides up to $35 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees, with $7 billion reserved for Class I railroad projects. The loans can be used to refinance outstanding infrastructure debt. The program also helps to finance project investments directly, up to the total cost of the project. State and local governments, government-sponsored authorities, corporations, railroads, and others can participate in the program.
8.4.9 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant program provides a unique opportunity for USDOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that have the potential to achieve critical national objectives. Since 2009, Congress has dedicated more than $4.1 billion for six rounds to fund projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region or a metropolitan area.12
8.4.10 FAA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) is administered by the FAA and provides grants for planning and developing public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). For large and medium primary hub airports, the grant covers 75 percent of eligible costs (or 80 percent for noise program implementation). For small primary, reliever, and general aviation airports, the grant covers a range of 90 to 95 percent of eligible costs, based on statutory requirements. Eligible projects include improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. In general, sponsors can use AIP funds on most airfield capital improvements or repairs and, in some specific situations, for terminals, hangars, and non-aviation development.
8.4.11 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Department of Commerce (DOC) administers federal funding for grants and cooperative agreements in the form of discretionary and nondiscretionary funds. The grants most germane to freight are administered by the Economic Development Administration (EDA), The EDA provides public works funds for distressed communities to revitalize, expand, and upgrade their physical infrastructure to attract new industry, encourage business expansion, diversify local economies, and generate or retain long-term, private sector jobs, and investment.13
11 U.S. Department of Transportation, FRA, retrieved August 14, 2014 from http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0128 12 U.S. Department of Transportation, retrieved 8/14/14 from http://www.dot.gov/tiger 13 http://www.eda.gov/programs.htm
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-4
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
8.5 FIXING AMERICA’S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION (FAST) ACT On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act that authorizes Federal highway, highway safety, transit, and rail programs for five years from Federal fiscal years (FY) 2016 through 2020. The FAST Act authorizes $305 billion from both the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund (GF) of the United States Treasury. It provides $225 billion in Highway Trust Fund (HTF) contract authority over five years for the Federal-aid Highway Program, increasing funding from $41 billion in 2015 to $47 billion in 2020.
The bill places major emphasis on freight investments to be supported by the HTF by creating a new National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) funded at an average of $1.2 billion per year and distributed to the States by formula. In addition, a new discretionary program entitled the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects is established, funded at an average of $900 million per year.14
This section provides a summary of the freight, freight funding and freight planning provisions in FAST. Details on the FAST Act can be found on:
• The AASHTO website http://fast.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx. • Official documents related to the bill can be found on the Congressional website http://transportation.house.gov/fast-act/.
8.5.1 SUMMARY OF FREIGHT FUNDING PROVISIONS IN FAST • Creates a National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN). . Includes a National Highway Freight Network consisting 41,000 highway miles. • Requires USDOT to create a National Multimodal Freight Policy, to be administered by the USDOT Undersecretary for Policy, to improve the condition and performance of the NMFN. . USDOT must complete a National Strategic Freight Plan every five years that will include processes for multi-State project delivery, and financial and regulatory barriers to freight movement, among other things. • Establishes a new National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) as part of the core Federal-aid Highway Program structure. The NHFP will direct Federal resources and policies to NHFN improvement. . This formula program is authorized at $6.2 billion over five years, and each State’s share of the NHFP will be based on the State’s overall share of highway program apportionments. . Flexibility of NHFP dollars within a State will be related to its share of miles on the Primary Highway Freight System. • Repeals the increased (90-95%) Federal match (in MAP-21) for freight projects on interstates and highways.
14 AASHTO Summary published December 16, 2015
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-5
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
• Creates the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) discretionary grant program designed for major highway and freight projects funded at $4.5 billion over five years. • Though funded out of the HTF, certain non-highway projects are eligible to receive portions of the NHFP and NSFHP dollars (for example: Provides eligibility for truck parking and surface transportation infrastructure improvements in port terminals for direct intermodal interchange, transfer, and port access).
8.5.2 STATE DOT FREIGHT PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES REQUIREMENTS • Mandates all States receiving NHFP formula funds to create a State Freight Plan (SFP) within two years of enactment. . Plans may be either standalone or be part of a State’s long-range transportation plan. . State freight plans must be coordinated with the performance-based planning process. . Plans shall include a 5 year forecast period and must be updated not less than every 5 years. . Plans must include a freight investment plan, including a list of priority projects, and be financially constrained. . Encourages States to form State Freight Advisory Committees with certain characteristics. . Adds language that the long-range transportation plan shall consider public ports and freight shippers (also clarifies what “private providers of transportation” include). . Expands the scope of the planning process to include addressing resiliency and reliability of the transportation system. • The FAST Act provides a number of details of what is required in the multimodal State freight plan and the granularity of data and analysis may not be consistent with the manner in which State DOTs currently develop their LRTPs. (details provided in later section). • Directs USDOT to develop freight analysis tools and data but provides no specific funding. This is separate from the performance management data support program. • There is no requirement that the MPOs develop any type of separate freight component for their long-range plans. • There are no significant changes to the performance-based planning process established in MAP-21, this includes no new national-level performance measures beyond what is currently being developed through the Federal rule-making process. However: . Performance Based Statewide Planning must include freight considerations and USDOT will assess if the State DOT has made significant progress towards the achievement of the freight targets established under 150(d). If the State DOT has not, then there are additional reporting requirements but no penalties associated with obligating the freight funds. . A Port Performance Statistics Program, requiring ports of certain thresholds to report annual throughput statistics. (An USDOT) advisory group will report to the Secretary annually on recommendations to improve port efficiency.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-6
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
. Changes existing language to a “shall” regarding the inclusion of description of performance measures and the system performance report in a State’s long-range transportation plan. • States must also report periodically on their progress in relation to the performance targets. If a State DOT does not achieve or make significant progress toward achieving targets in any performance measurement area after one reporting cycle, State must submit a report describing the actions they will undertake to achieve their targets in the future. . The penalty for falling below the minimum condition levels for pavements on the Interstate system is imposed after the first reporting cycle.
8.5.3 FEDERAL FREIGHT FUNDING STATE USE OF FUNDS15 The FAST Act requires States to obligate NHFP funds for projects to improve the movement of freight on the NHFN. A State’s formula is calculated based upon the number of Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS) miles in that State relative to all PHFS miles.
For States whose formula proportion is greater than or equal to two percent, it may obligate funds to any of the NHFN network elements except for interstates not part of the PHFS. For States whose formula proportion is less than or equal to two percent, it may obligate funds to any segment of the NHFN, which would include all interstates. Program eligibilities and features include:
• Limiting States to the use of no more than ten percent of apportioned funds on certain non- highway projects, such as governmental costs associated with rail and intermodal connectors. • Project development activities • Construction, reconstruction rehabilitation, and land acquisition • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), including freight ITS • Environmental mitigation related to freight impact • Rail-highway grade separation • Geometric design improvements • Truck-only lanes • Runaway and climbing truck lanes • Shoulder widening • Truck Parking Facilities • Real-time information systems • Electronic screening and credentialing • Traffic signals • Work Zone management • Ramp metering • ITS and other technologies for intermodal facilities and border crossings
15 AASHTO Summary of FAST Act – 2015-12-16 FINAL
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-7
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
• Additional road capacity for highway freight bottlenecks • Any project that improves flow of freight to the NHFN • Diesel retrofits • Data collection and analysis • Performance Target development
NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT AND HIGHWAY FUNDING16 The FAST Act creates the new Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects discretionary program to provide Federal financial assistance for projects of national or regional significance. Grants must be at least $25 million, and may only be made to State or local government agencies or groups of multiple agencies. Other features include:
• Highway freight projects must be on the NHFN or a highway or bridge project on the NHS, including adding interstate capacity. • Other freight projects may also include rail, intermodal facilities, projects in scenic areas, and highway-rail grade separation, however non-highway projects are limited to $500 million over five years, must improve freight on the NHFN, and must provide public benefits. • Eligible projects and project costs must be equal to or exceed the lesser of $100 million, 30 percent of a State’s apportionment if the project is in one State, or 50 percent of the largest State’s apportionment in a multi-State project. • Ten percent of the program annually must be set aside for Small Projects (grants that are still a minimum $5 million). • 25 percent of annual eligible funding will be set aside for projects in rural areas (areas outside urbanized areas with populations over 200,000). • Federal project share may not exceed 60 percent, or 80 percent if other Federal resources are used to satisfy the State share. • Freight projects will be treated as if they occur on a Federal-aid Highway. • Congress may disapprove funding for a project within 60 days of USDOT’s selection. • Other Freight Provisions • Trucks carrying fluid milk products on the interstates are considered non-divisible loads. • Interstate weight waivers are allowed for covered heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicles. • Allows up to 86,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight on interstates for emergency vehicles. • Allows for vehicle weight attributable to natural gas propulsion system to be exempt from total vehicle weight calculations. • Provides specific Interstate Highway weight waivers certain States. • Sets aside $1.2 billion of HSIP funds over five years for the Section 130 highway-rail grade crossing program. • Includes ferries/terminals, truck parking facilities, rail-grade crossings and intermodal transfers in ports as eligible projects in the new STBGP. • Calls for a report on delays in goods movement.
16 AASHTO Summary of FAST Act – 2015-12-16 FINAL
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-8
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
• A working group is established to address expedition • Creates a new port performance statistics program. • Provides community safety grants for crude-by-rail. • Creates a framework for emergency planning and response for crude-by-rail derailments.
8.5.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE FREIGHT PLANNING Details on what is to be included in a state freight plan are described in this section. The specific language in FAST can be found on the U.S. House of Representative’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s website (http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.pdf ). Figure 8-1 shows the freight specific sections of the FAST Act.
Figure 8-1: FAST Freight Specific Sections
TITLE VIII—MULTIMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION
SEC. 8001. MULTIMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION (a) Subtitle IX of title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
Subtitle IX—Multimodal Freight Transportation Chapter Sec. 701. Multimodal freight policy Chapter Sec. 702. Multimodal freight transportation planning and information CHAPTER 701—MULTIMODAL FREIGHT POLICY Sec. 70101. National multimodal freight policy. Sec. 70102. National freight strategic plan. Sec. 70103. National Multimodal Freight Network. CHAPTER 702—MULTIMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND INFORMATION Sec. 70201. State freight advisory committees. Sec. 70202. State freight plans. Sec. 70203. Transportation investment data and planning tools. Sec. 70204. Savings provision.
STATE FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEES (FAC) Each state is encouraged to establish a freight advisory committee (FAC). The FAC should consist of representatives from a cross-section of public and private sector freight stakeholders, including:
• ports • freight railroads • shippers • carriers • freight-related associations • third-party logistics providers • the freight industry workforce
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-9
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
• the transportation department of the State • local governments
Role of State Freight Advisory Committee:
1. Advise the State on freight-related priorities, issues, projects, and funding needs; 2. Serve as a forum for discussion for State transportation decisions affecting freight mobility; 3. Communicate and coordinate regional priorities with other organizations; 4. Promote the sharing of information between the private and public sectors on freight issues; and 5. Participate in the development of the State freight plan.
STATE FREIGHT PLANS Each State that receives funding under Section 167 of Title 23 shall develop a freight plan that provides a comprehensive plan for the immediate and long-range planning activities and investments of the State with respect to freight. A state freight plan shall include, at a minimum:
1. An identification of significant freight system trends, needs, and issues with respect to the State; 2. A description of the freight policies, strategies, and performance measures that will guide the freight-related transportation investment decisions of the State; 3. When applicable, a listing of: a. Multimodal critical rural freight facilities and corridors designated within the State under section 70103 of this title; and b. Critical rural and urban freight corridors designated within the State under section 167 of title 23; 4. A description of how the plan will improve the ability of the State to meet the national multimodal freight policy goals described in section 70101(b) of this title and the national highway freight program goals described in section 167 of 12 title 23; 5. A description of how innovative technologies and operational strategies, including freight intelligent transportation systems, that improve the safety and efficiency of freight movement, were considered; 6. A description of improvements that may be required to reduce or impede the deterioration in the case of roadways on which travel by heavy vehicles (including mining, agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, and timber vehicles) is projected to substantially deteriorate their condition; 7. An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such as bottlenecks, within the State, and for those facilities that are State owned or operated, a description of the strategies the State is employing to address the freight mobility issues; 8. Consideration of any significant congestion or delay caused by freight movements and any strategies to mitigate that congestion or delay; 9. A freight investment plan that, subject to subsection (c)(2), includes a list of priority projects and describes how funds made available to carry out section 167 of title 23 would be invested and matched; and 10. Consultation with the State freight advisory committee, if applicable.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-10
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
RELATIONSHIP TO LONG-RANGE PLAN • A State freight plan may be developed separately from or incorporated into the statewide strategic long-range transportation plan required by section 135 of title 23. • The freight investment plan component of a freight plan shall include a project, or an identified phase of a project, only if funding for completion of the project can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project within the time period identified in the freight investment plan. • A State freight plan described in subsection (a) shall address a 5-year forecast period. • A State shall update a State freight plan described in subsection (a) not less frequently than once every 5 years. • A State may update a freight investment plan more frequently than is required.
8.5.5 RELEVANT USDOT FREIGHT REQUIREMENTS USDOT TO CREATE A NATIONAL MULTIMODAL FREIGHT POLICY AND MULTIMODAL FREIGHT NETWORK The FAST Act creates a National Multimodal Freight Policy, to be administered by the USDOT Undersecretary for Policy, to improve the condition and performance of the NMFN.
• USDOT must complete a National Strategic Freight Plan every five years that will include processes for multi-State project delivery, and financial and regulatory barriers to freight movement, among other things. • USDOT must designate a new NMFN within one year of enactment, and an interim network within six months. The NMFN consists of: . National Highway Freight Network . Class I freight railroads . Ports with annual foreign and domestic trade of at least two million short tons . Inland and intracoastal waterways . Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway . Maritime Administration marine highways . 50 US airports with highest annual landed weight . Other assets as identified by Undersecretary of Policy (i.e., short-line railroads) . States may seek additional assets on the NMFN with the input of various freight stakeholders, including critical rural freight assets.
USDOT TO DEVELOP TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DATA AND PLANNING TOOLS Under §70203 USDOT is to develop Transportation Investment Data and Planning Tools. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the USDOT Secretary of Transportation shall:
1. Begin development of new tools and improvement of existing tools to support an outcome oriented, performance-based approach to evaluate proposed freight-related and other transportation projects, including: a. Methodologies for systematic analysis of benefits and costs on a national or regional basis;
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-11
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
b. Tools for ensuring that the evaluation of freight-related and other transportation projects could consider safety, economic competitiveness, urban and rural access, environmental sustainability, and system condition in the project selection process; c. Improved methods for data collection and trend analysis; d. Encouragement of public-private collaboration to carry out data sharing activities while maintaining the confidentiality of all proprietary data; and e. Other tools to assist in effective transportation planning; 2. Identify transportation-related model data elements to support a broad range of evaluation methods and techniques to assist in making transportation investment decisions; and 3. At a minimum, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, consider any improvements to existing freight flow data collection efforts that could reduce identified freight data gaps and deficiencies and help improve forecasts of freight transportation demand.
The Secretary shall consult with Federal, State, and other stakeholders to develop, improve, and implement the tools and collect the data described in subsection (a).
8.6 STATE FREIGHT POLICIES 8.6.1 STATEWIDE FREIGHT PLANNING The current freight planning document for the state of North Carolina is the Statewide Logistics Plan. This was completed in 2008 however the state has recently begun an effort to develop a FAST compliant statewide freight plan. Until the plan is completed, the policies within the Logistics Plan are those most relevant to the Charlotte Regional Freight Mobility Plan. The Statewide Logistics Plan took a look at major industries throughout the state and recommended changes to the transportation in order to sustain and grow them. The Statewide Logistics Plan emphasizes system reliability and alternative road finance mechanisms such as tolling or vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) fees, and recommends that NCDOT be transformed into an operations-based agency in addition to making improvements to facilitate pass-through traffic – especially traffic traveling on I-95, I-85, and I-77 in a north-south direction.
The Statewide Logistics Plan also identified rail issues within the state and developed recommendations to improve the safety, preservation and operations of the state’s railroads. Historically, private investment has funded rail infrastructure enhancements however, railroads have struggled to make these investments, particularly short line railroads. As a result, the Plan identified considerations for the state’s rail system:
• Retain existing rail corridors and halt track removal • Continue direct support for short-line railroad infrastructure improvements • Expand capacity in high-use rail corridors, including the expansion into double/triple track configurations • Enhance/improve scheduling and coordination with passenger rail service • Explore routing options for hazardous materials shipments to avoid highly populated areas • Reduce at-grade rail/highway crossings
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-12
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
• Provide rail access to North Carolina Port Authority inland terminals (currently located in Greensboro and Charlotte).
The Seven Portals Study (2011) recommended infrastructure and policies to establish “logistics villages” throughout the state. These freight specific developments are freight-oriented business parks and intermodal centers that have ready access to air, rail, and highway connectivity. The goal of logistics villages is to help increase economic activity and transportation efficiency at these sites, such as access between intermodal and private distribution centers, rest and parking areas for drivers, and fixing choke points and bottlenecks.
The recently completed South Carolina State Freight Plan (SFP) identifies potential SCDOT policy directions to support the continued success of the state’s freight generating industries. There are four primary policy documents that will guide the creation of South Carolina’s freight policies:
• Charting a Course to 2040: South Carolina’s Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan (MTP), provides an overall framework and vision for the State Freight Plan; • Corresponding 2040 SCDOT Plans: These plans supplement the State Freight Plan by providing detailed information about certain freight modes; • SCDOT Strategic Plan: Provides the framework for SCDOT internal implementation of potential policy changes to improve freight; and • Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP‐21): Establishes a recommended framework for state freight plans and provides national freight policy guidance.
CHARTING A COURSE TO 2040: SOUTH CAROLINA’S STATEWIDE MULTIMODAL PLAN The SFP is a stand‐alone supplement to the MTP. As such, the goals for the SFP incorporate the goals of the MTP as well as goals identified in MAP-21 for a freight plan and include:
• Mobility and System Reliability • Safety • Infrastructure Condition • Economic and Community Vitality • Environmental • Equity
Recommended policies for freight transportation planning have been developed for each objective identified for these goals in order to provide am understanding of the performance of the goods movement network in South Carolina.
SCDOT STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan is SCDOT’s internal business plan. It describes “how” SCDOT will deliver products and services. The document is designed to guide SCDOT employees in the fulfillment of the department’s mission and priorities. This contrast with the MTP, which is an externally‐focused document, intended to describe broadly “what” the Department will provide to its customers. The
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-13
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
Strategic Plan includes a vision and identifies three critical management areas (CMAs), all of which are relevant to the MTP: Partnerships, Planning, and Transportation Systems and Infrastructure.
MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY (MAP‐21) MAP-21 has been replaced by Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) and has been summarized previously in Section 8-5.
8.6.2 NORTH CAROLINA STATE FUNDING The North Carolina Department of Transportation is responsible for building and maintaining the state’s transportation network, with an annual operating budget of about $4.4 billion. Transportation funding (Figure 8-2) includes approximately 80 percent state revenues and 20 percent federal. Approximately 60 percent of state transportation funding is based on revenues from the Motor Fuel Tax; 25 percent comes from driver and vehicles fees collected by the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles; and 15 percent is from the Highway Use Tax on vehicle title transfers.
Figure 8-2: NCDOT Transportation Funding Sources
Source: NCDOT
Appropriated by the US Congress, federal transportation funding comes from a federal motor fuel tax and vehicle fees (mostly on trucks). It accounts for approximately 20 percent of NCDOT's overall budget and about 45 percent of its construction budget.
In April 2013, the NCDOT restructured the state’s funding formula to emphasize improvements on higher volume roads and freight corridors. These changes were incorporated into the Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) program.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-14
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
The state revenue sources for transportation funding are allocated to two state funds: Highway Fund and STI. The Highway Fund primarily supports projects on the state's existing transportation system. This includes resurfacing highways, replacing bridges and paving unpaved secondary roads. Funds are distributed across North Carolina based on need. It is also used to provide state aid to municipalities for pedestrian, bicycle and road improvements. The STI primarily funds new construction and expansion projects across all modes of transportation. Funding is allocated on local, regional and statewide levels based on data and input from local planning organizations and NCDOT divisions. Figure 8-3 shows the allocation of NCDOT transportation funding for FY 15-16.
Figure 8-3: NCDOT Transportation Funding Allocation (FY15-16)
Source: NCDOT
8.6.3 SOUTH CAROLINA STATE FUNDING South Carolina’s state funding sources are organized into four main programs. Two are controlled by SCDOT; the other two programs are controlled by independent commissions. These programs are funded largely (71 percent) from the state motor fuels user fee of $0.16 per gallon.
STATE HIGHWAY FUND (SHF) SCDOT’s major state funding program is the SHF. It functions similar to a general revenue account for the agency. The SHF funds maintenance and operations, construction, transit, debt service, payroll and other overhead expenses, and provides the local match for federal funding. There are annual statutory transfers from this fund to the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank and C‐ Fund (described below). In addition, approximately $3.5 million is transferred annually to the Department of Natural Resource’s Watercraft Fund.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-15
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • National and State Freight Policies
NON‐FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACCOUNT (NFAHA) In 2005, the NFAHA was created to fund maintenance projects that were not eligible for federal maintenance dollars. Therefore, this account can only be used for maintenance on non‐federal aid roads and cannot be used to pay for administrative expenses. Unlike the SHF, 90 percent of which is funded by motor fuel user fee revenue, the NFAHA is funded from many sources including driver license fees and inspection fees for petroleum products. The NFAHA is formally administered by the Secretary of Transportation and governed by the Commission.
C‐FUND The C‐Fund program is controlled by 46 individual County Transportation Committees (CTC) whose membership is appointed by their respective legislative delegation. The individual CTCs select their own projects. However, state law limits the amount of C‐Funds spent on local roads to 75 percent of the CTC’s C‐Fund allocation. CTCs are enabled to administer their C‐Fund programs/projects independently. However, a number of CTCs request SCDOT manage the administration of their local programs.
SOUTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BANK (SCTIB) Any state or local agency/district can apply for a SCTIB loan to construct an eligible project which include improvements to highways and bridges that cost more than $100 million, including all planning, environmental, right‐of‐way and construction costs. The project must provide a public benefit described as an “enhancement of mobility and safety; promotion of economic development; or increase in the quality of life and general welfare of the public.” Over the past 15 years, the SCTIB has leveraged $3 billion to complete over $5 billion of highway improvements.
LOCAL AND NON‐TRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES Over the past two decades, local governments have played an increasing role in funding transportation projects. Since 1996, SCDOT estimates local investment in Federal‐Aid projects to be about $1.2 billion, a majority of which served as matching dollars for SCTIB funds.
HOUSE BILL 3360 In June 2013, Governor Haley signed into law a bill that will add over $1 billion of road and bridge investment over the next decade. The bill directs $50 million of general fund revenue to the SCTIB for the next ten years and will all the SCTIB to take on over $500 million in projects immediately through its ability to issue bonds. The fund is for new SCTIB projects only.
In addition, the law directs 50 percent of sales tax collected on motor vehicle purchases each year to be used to improve secondary roads. It also transfers $50 million from the general fund to SCDOT to leverage $250 million in federal bridge funding.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 8-16
9. FREIGHT MOBILITY BEST PRACTICES
The best practices listed in Table 9-1 have been shown to improve the performance of the freight network. These are organized into five themes: Funding; Streamlining; Data, Research, and Education; Planning; and Capacity Enhancements/Efficiency. They have been based (in whole or in part) on those within the National Freight Strategic Plan and is an illustrative list. A best practices technical memorandum will be produced.
Table 9-1: National Freight Strategic Plan – Performance Improvement
National Freight Strategic Plan – Performance Improvement Best Practices Funding Encourage intermodal freight activity through streamlined investment. Revise policies to incentivize the efficient and effective use of available funding for freight projects. Address aging infrastructure, bridge weight limitations, excepted rail track; generally poor road pavement conditions within heavy-haul corridors, etc. with a priority towards State of Good Repair and Asset Management. Streamlining Continue to encourage innovative project delivery methods such as design-build. Assess key methods and practices that have led to project acceleration during emergencies and extenuating circumstances and identify opportunities for application to existing programs. Continue to explore section (c) CEs” Categorical Exclusions for roadway, seaport, waterway, rail, and airport freight-related projects. Develop a list of preapproved “On- Call Contractors” available for emergency repairs and rehabilitation to the freight network.. FHWA’s Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative should be applied to all modal Administrations within the state DOTs. To enhance project delivery of grade crossing improvements, there should be an approved safety and performance standard for smaller, more compact pedestrian gate designs that are suitable for sidewalk environments. Data, Research, and Education The Freight plans of State DOTs and the National Freight Strategic Plan should be an interagency shared effort at the state level so that information and data sharing occurs across the various agencies. Data collection efforts should be tailored to performance measures that are in line with specific freight outcomes with the increased emphasis on the multimodal national freight system. State DOTs should investigate the possibility of investigating objective third party organizations to facilitate raw and complete data collection agreements with private industry. Planning Encourage and support the creation of regional, statewide, and/or multi-state institutions as appropriate with the specialized staffing expertise to handle freight projects and the authority to oversee, finance, and implement key initiatives to expedite the delivery of freight transportation projects. Establish a regional Freight Advisory Committee to be involved in the planning process and become advocates and more effective partners with private sector freight stakeholders and decision makers.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 9-1
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Mobility Best Practices
National Freight Strategic Plan – Performance Improvement Best Practices Local and state public sector in conjunction with the private sector should provide education and training programs for MPO and State DOT planning staff to expand their understanding of supply chain issues, modeling freight movements, the dynamics of multi-state corridors and the economics of mega regions and international trading patterns. Capacity Enhancement/Efficiency Expand the capacity of the freight system by encouraging the effective utilization of all modal and operational opportunities, e.g. off-peak cargo movements. Expedite development and implementation of air space modernization (including NextGen initiatives) to relieve air space congestion and reduce delays in air cargo delivery. Air cargo tends to be high value freight and pays a premium for fast and reliable delivery. Delay and uncertainty are serious concerns. Increase efficiencies along the supply chain by promoting electronic communications among all logistics supply chain business segments. Support programs and policies that improve efficiencies of cross border freight movement without jeopardizing safety. Specifically, border crossing inspection technology should be updated with proven, state-of-the-art technology that will speed up throughput at heavily congested locations.
The strategies related to best practices to mitigate community impacts are organized by eight themes: Safety; Environmental Sustainability; Funding; Harmonization, Standards and Institutional Arrangements; Data, Research, Education and Reporting; Infrastructure Design; Regulation and Enforcement; and Technology Implementation (Development, Demonstrations, Deployment).
Table 9-2: National Freight Strategic Plan – Community Impact Mitigation
National Freight Strategic Plan – Community Impact Mitigation Best Practices Safety Move forward with efforts to ensure existing safety regulations are current, and to promulgate new safety regulations, for all modes to mitigate community impacts. DOT modal agencies should adopt zero fatalities resulting from the movement of freight as an ultimate vision with a sense of urgency. Environmental Sustainability Incentivize DOTs and MPOs/RPOs to practice multi-modal freight planning and operational strategies, risk assessment, and collaborative problem solving that involves multiple stakeholders. Funding Develop federal programs in a way that supports and prioritizes funding of first and last mile connectors that are part of systems with regional and national significance, including both urban and rural connectors. Provide program funds for rail-highway grade crossing improvements; provide adequate funding to minimize safety and community impacts. Harmonization, Standards and Institutional Arrangements Encourage integrated freight and passenger transport planning, and encourage investment and operational solutions that maximize safety, and effectively utilize resources while minimizing environmental, energy, and local impacts. Support the development of best practices toolkits for urban and rural freight transportation planning that seek to reduce freight related congestion, air emissions, parking issues, and impacts on the health and safety of transportation professionals and the public.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 9-2
Appendix B – Existing Conditions • Freight Mobility Best Practices
National Freight Strategic Plan – Community Impact Mitigation Best Practices Data, Research, Education and Reporting Establish a workgroup to develop a set of recommendations related to best practices of private and public sector workforce development in the freight industry. The recommendations should be based on research and analysis of the issues related to both the private and public sector workforce of the freight industry. This workgroup could provide recommendations that could help to develop and implement the partnership. Infrastructure Design Support the development of definite freight delivery networks to expand delivery options across all modes and clearly designate truck routes to optimize safety and system performance and reduce community and environmental impacts. Regulation and Enforcement Use transportation policies and operational best practices such as strategic zoning, street design, building design and comprehensive land use policies that plan for freight activities without encroaching on freight right-of-way. The policies should include economic development incentives and effective truck route planning to minimize the impacts of first and last mile freight transportation on surrounding communities. Utilize policy best practices such as buffering freight activity centers from population centers. Freight generating land uses can potentially bring great benefits to a region by providing jobs, tax dollars, and proximity of goods to growing populations and businesses. Utilize operational best practices to encourage State and local authorities to employ a comprehensive approach to enhancing freight activity in First and Last Mile environments and corridors. Enhance worker safety and training requirements for all freight workers, including wellness and fatigue management. This can be accomplished by supporting scientific and evidence based comprehensive fatigue reduction initiatives to reduce operator and worker fatigue. Further, to protect the health and welfare of transportation workers and those they interact with, regulations can insure effective minimum levels of training are required for all entry-level and new workers required to operate transportation equipment, if not already provided. Technology Implementation (Development, Demonstrations, Deployment) Expand the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems, technology, and innovation to improve the flow of freight that minimize community impacts and improve environmental and safety conditions while fostering economic productivity and efficiency. Use technological solutions to address truck parking. There are technology companies that provide information regarding parking availability, reservation system, cashless payment and navigation information directly to the driver using smart phone technology. Promote adoption of advanced technologies and compliance methods that support and encourage ideal workforce safety practices.
GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 9-3