TxDOT I-45 Freight Corridor Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Interstate 45 (I‐45), linking Galveston, Houston and Dallas is the most heavily traversed multimodal freight corridor in Texas. The multimodal I‐45 Corridor supports The highway element of the I‐45 Corridor is also one of the a complex system of seaports, most congested in the nation: A national study released in terminals, warehousing, and 2015 showed that of the top 100 freight bottlenecks in the distribution centers connecting two of nation, five were located on I‐45. Across the entire Interstate the nation’s largest urban areas, and Highway System, I‐45 had more freight bottlenecks per mile serving as the primary gateway to and than any other facility in the nation. from the Port of Houston. Extending 276 miles from Galveston to Last year the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Dallas, I‐45 traverses 11 counties with a designated I‐45 as an element of the Highway Primary Freight population of over 10 million: Network (HPFN). Under the recent highway reauthorization bill Commodity analysis completed for the passed by Congress; Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Texas Statewide Freight Mobility Plan (FAST) Act, corridors on the HPFN are eligible for a five year, found than nearly half of all truck $6.3 billion state formula freight funding program. freight in Texas crosses some portion of The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has prepared these 11 counties. the I‐45 Freight Corridor Plan (I‐45 FCP) to achieve By 2040 truck tonnage on the I‐45 departmental goals for supporting private sector supply chains, corridor is expected to more than enhancing freight mobility, and improving the competitiveness double to 1.4 million tons. of the Texas economy. This plan examines the multimodal freight corridor and identifies strategic actions and investments for improving the efficiency, mobility, reliability, and safety of this critical transportation corridor.
The I‐45 FCP is a direct result of work done by TxDOT in preparing the Texas Freight Mobility Plan (TFMP), the state’s first statewide freight plan, which was adopted by the Texas Transportation Commission in January 2016. The TFMP established broad freight movement objectives and performance targets for the state’s freight network. Under this umbrella the I‐45 FCP serves as a master plan for freight system improvements in the I‐45 corridor, identifying short and long term improvement strategies, including infrastructure enhancements, operational improvements, and freight policies.
February 2016 1
WHY IS THE I-45 FREIGHT CORRIDOR IMPORTANT?
Texans understand that a vibrant economy and quality standard of living is highly dependent upon efficient and effective transportation systems. The multimodal I‐45 Freight Corridor is a key element of an integrated regional freight network of critical importance that moves massive freight volumes supporting the Texas economy and international commerce. Connecting the Houston‐Galveston and Dallas‐Fort Worth areas, two of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation and the two largest in the state, the corridor provides primary access for freight movement between those two major markets including the major seaports in the Houston and Galveston, and major inland ports in Dallas and Fort Worth.
The importance of the I‐45 Freight Corridor to the movement of goods extends beyond Texas. Commodity flow data suggests that in 2010, 47% of the freight tonnage originating or terminating at the ports or counties within the corridor had an origin or destination outside of Texas. This percentage is forecasted to decrease to 34% in 2040.
According to the recently completed Texas Freight Mobility Plan, nearly half of all truck freight in Texas is moved through the eleven counties of the corridor. The I‐45 Freight Corridor is comprised of the 276 miles of I‐45, plus the multimodal networks supported by arterial highways and collector routes, the Class I Union Pacific railroad line, terminal railroads, seaports, major air cargo airports, intermodal facilities, inland ports, and associated facilities — including many industrial, warehousing, and distribution centers. Thus, the I‐45 Freight Corridor is far from just a “highway.”
February 2016 2
FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS: A CRITICAL CONSTITUENT ON I-45
Freight stakeholder engagement was an essential element of the I‐45 FCP that occurred throughout the project. Gathering stakeholder input began by building upon the stakeholder information gathered through the TFMP, extracting specific I‐45 input gained from statewide surveys of motor carriers, shippers/receivers, and truck drivers. The study team also sought and received input from elected officials, motor carriers and railroads, truck drivers, economic development professionals, and local and regional planners along the I‐45 corridor. Throughout the study meetings were held Stakeholder Meeting in Houston along the corridor to update stakeholders of progress and ask opinions about the study process, verify information and findings, and solicit feedback on preliminary results. Principal elements of the Stakeholder Engagement Program included:
TFMP shipper and carrier surveys that included specific questions regarding I‐45 I‐45 specific freight stakeholder interviews and surveys I‐45 Corridor Listening Sessions in Houston, Jewett, Corsicana, and Dallas – May and June 2014 I‐45 Key Stakeholder Meetings o Houston and Dallas ‐ June 2015 o Houston and Dallas ‐ October 2015 (expanded to include Listening Session participants)
Of particular value, was stakeholder information confirming hot spot and bottleneck locations. It was also useful to hear first‐hand insights about freight movement challenges in the corridor from system users.
Draft Plan Policies and Outreach Method Fact‐Finding and Issue Identification Recommendations
Listening Sessions Input to identify key freight needs, Input on freight improvement challenges, strengths and opportunities strategies I‐45 key stakeholder Input on freight movement deficiencies Review and input on draft meetings and opportunities recommendations and recommendation packaging TFMP Shipper and Input on travel patterns, freight flows and Data informed development carrier surveys volumes and key issues and concerns of policies and across the network recommendations
Surveys and Interviews Input on information on the freight Data informed development movement challenges along I‐45 of policies and recommendations
February 2016 3
WHO IS DRIVING FREIGHT DEMAND ON THE I-45 CORRIDOR?
We all drive freight demand. Freight activity is an expression of economic vitality and quality of life. Regional populations that consume only what is produced in the regional economy are likely to be poor and have limited choices. While regional economies often produce some essential goods and services (e.g., food, clothing and shelter), consumers in more prosperous regions are more likely to demand wider choices, requiring goods and services to be imported from other regions. Regional businesses that produce more than the local population consumes export excess production to external regions creating freight activity.
I-45 IS AN IMPORTANT LINK IN SUPPLY CHAINS SUPPORTING THE TRADE ECONOMY
I‐45 and parallel Class I railroads were the primary freight modes examined by the I‐45 FCP. In addition to moving freight between the Houston‐Galveston and Dallas regions, the corridor also carries much of Texas’ inbound marine port cargo to inland destinations in North Texas and the rest of the U.S. The I‐45 Corridor, anchored by two of the fastest growing metropolitan regions in the nation, serves as the primary conduit to the Port of Houston – the second largest U.S. marine port by tonnage; and, it supports the growing inland distribution hubs around Fort Worth Alliance and South Dallas.
The I‐45 Freight Corridor supports many supply chains important to the Texas economy. Five analyzed for the I‐ 45 FCP include: automotive, beef, cotton, electronics, and gasoline. The oil and gas industry constitutes over one‐third of Texas’ economy. Gasoline is the highest volume commodity moving on the I‐45 corridor now and through 2040. Forecasts suggest that between now and 2040 products associated with Electrical Equipment will have the greatest tonnage increase on the corridor. Overall, commodities supporting the electronics industry are projected to increase nearly ten‐fold (891 percent). Due to the time sensitivity of electronic components most of this increase in tonnage will be carried Source: Texas Freight Mobility Plan, 2015 by truck. Automotive Manufacturing, another Texas growth industry is forecast to increase tonnage of automotive parts in the corridor from 277,844 tons per year to 943,462 tons by 2040, a 240 percent increase (262 percent increase by truck and 193 percent increase by rail).
February 2016 4
WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES FACING THE I-45 FREIGHT CORRIDOR?
The I‐45 Corridor is facing mounting pressure in terms of safety, infrastructure condition, congestion and reliability due to growing traffic in the corridor. Increasing population and expanding trade means more goods moving in the future between the essential economic network of ports, terminals, warehousing, and distribution centers in the corridor. Congestion is already an issue and future projections of traffic and freight movement shows that conditions will worsen unless an action plan is undertaken to address these challenges. To better understand and assess the multimodal freight needs in the corridor, the plan assembled an inventory of the existing freight assets and their condition. Using this inventory, the condition and performance of key corridor assets were evaluated across four TFMP metrics: Safety, Asset Management, Mobility and Economic Competitiveness. To analyze existing conditions, and assess potential action strategies with a meaningful level of detail, the I‐45 corridor was divided into the following ten segments:
Segment Segment Description Length Character TxDOT District 10 FM 660 to I‐20 (Dallas) 10 Suburban/rural Dallas 9 SH 31 to FM 660 (Ferris) 35 Rural Dallas 8 US 79 to SH 31 (Corsicana) 53 Rural Dallas/Bryan 7 SH 75/FM 1791 to US 79 (Buffalo) 60 Rural Bryan 6 SH 242 to SH 75/FM 1791 (Huntsville) 39 Rural Bryan/Houston 5 FM 1960 to SH 242 (Woodlands & Conroe) 13 Suburban/rural Houston 4 I‐610N to FM 1960 (Houston) 15 Suburban/urban Houston 3 I‐10 to I‐610N (Houston) 3 Urban Houston 2 I‐610S to I‐10 (Houston) 8 Urban Houston 1 Galveston (SH 87 to I‐610S) 40 Suburban/urban Houston Notes: FM = Farm to Market Route; SH = State Highway SAFETY
Safety performance in the I‐45 Corridor was evaluated using two crash metrics: 1) All commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes per million vehicle miles of travel (MVMT), 2) Fatal CMV crashes per MVMT. When applied to each segment of the corridor, segments 2 through 9 performed ‘very good.’ Segment 1 between Galveston and Houston performed ‘fair’ while segment 10 in Dallas performed “poor.”
Source: The Port of Houston Authority
February 2016 5
ASSET MANAGEMENT
The I‐45 FCP also evaluated conditional attributes for important infrastructure such as pavement condition, bridge condition and bridge vertical clearance. The evaluation found that mainline bridge and pavement conditions are largely in “good” or “fair” condition with only 1 percent of bridges and 4 percent of pavement miles rated as “poor” (see the top two pie charts in the Conditions Summary graphic). Federal Interstate Highway policy recommends a minimum vertical clearance for bridges of 16 feet. The TxDOT Roadway Design Manual sets a minimum standard of 16’6”. A major policy recommendation of TFMP was to raise the vertical clearance for all primary freight highways to 18’ 6”. Currently a small number of I‐45 bridges do not meet the current 16’ 6” standard; 23 bridges on I‐45 meet the TFMP policy target of 18’ 6”. Many of the secondary routes in the corridor do not meet the current TxDOT bridge standard (see the bottom pie charts in the following graphic).
I‐45 Pavement and Bridge Conditions Summary
February 2016 6
MOBILITY AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS Frontage Roads and Interchanges I‐45 frontage roads provide access to residential and commercial land uses and provide for local traffic circulation, often reducing the number of short trips using the I‐45 main lanes. In addition to providing local access, frontage roads provide critical alternate diversion routes during temporary main line closures (e.g., crash incidents, construction, or weather). While I‐45 has adjacent frontage roads along most of the roadway between Dallas and Galveston, portions of I‐45 without frontage roads include downtown Houston and some short sections in more rural areas of the corridor. In a number of locations there are two‐way frontage roads along only one side of I‐45. Stakeholders, asked to identify interchanges where they perceived problems with either capacity, geometry, or overall operations, called out the following I‐45 interchanges: I‐10 I‐20 I‐610 North SH 75 and US 79/SH 164 in Buffalo US 59 SH 7 in Centerville SH 84 in Fairfield FM 1394 in Richland I‐610 South US 287 and Business I‐45 in Corsicana According to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), the not‐for‐profit research arm of the American Trucking Association, six of the top 100 freight bottlenecks in the country in 2015 are on I‐45. Four of these locations were the same interchanges identified by stakeholders (bold in the list above). The ATRI analysis also identifies I‐45 at I‐30 in Dallas, and I‐45 and the Sam Houston Tollway (North) in Houston as other congested interchanges. Congestion Level of Service Because congestion impacts the efficient movement of goods in the I‐45 corridor, truck mobility in the corridor was investigated using Level of Service (LOS) and average truck speed. LOS is an indicator metric based on the ratio of traffic volume to highway capacity. The easiest way to think of the LOS metrics is as a report card for highway congestion. An “A” LOS means free flowing conditions with only minor traffic disruption, while an LOS of “F” suggests a severely congested facility often plagued with stop and go traffic. Currently much of the corridor is experiencing a LOS of F in the southern third of the corridor in the Houston region and north to Conroe. The data also shows that the percent of trucks in the traffic stream is greatest in the middle sections of the corridor, where the volumes of passenger vehicles drops in rural sections of I‐45.
February 2016 7
Freight Forecasts Forecasts of freight demand were developed to understand likely impacts on the corridor in the future. Over the next twenty‐five years, population and employment in the I‐45 corridor are expected to grow 58 percent and 79 percent, respectively. With this population and employment growth, corresponding increases in shipping of freight into the region is expected for consumer consumption, manufacturing inputs, or international imports; and shipping out of the region as international exports or manufacturing output is also expected. Exhibit 7 shows volume estimates for truck and rail modes in the corridor for 2010 and 2040. While overall tonnage in the corridor is expected to increase by 89 percent, truck tonnage in the corridor is expected to more than double, with the forecasts suggesting an increase of 130 percent, as the share of freight moving by truck in the corridor is expected to grow. Investments in rail infrastructure and improvements in rail service in the corridor, could impact these forecasts.
2010 and 2040 Truck and Rail Tonnage Volumes Moving on the I‐45 Corridor 300
250
200 192 millions
in
150
82 100 Tonnage
50 90 73
0 2010 2040
Rail Truck
Source: TxDOT TRANSEARCH
data 2011
February 2016 8
HOW CAN CHALLENGES FACING I-45 BE ADDRESSED; NOW AND IN THE FUTURE?
The I‐45 FCP developed improvement scenarios with customized alternative strategies in response to the specific freight needs identified from the performance data.
Potential improvement actions and projects was developed using a three‐tiered improvement framework.
Quick Start Projects/Strategies: relatively quick and low cost projects addressing immediate, “hot spot” issues (less than $5 million; 1‐4 years) Multimodal Network Enhancements: focus on traditional highway capital investments (up to $200 million; 5‐10 years) Horizon Strategies: non‐ traditional projects and/or policies that due to their nature are very high cost and may require long time horizons due to regulatory hurdles, the state of technology, public acceptance, or private sector buy‐in (10 or more years, or requires a legislative or law change).
Applying a Case Study Evaluation Approach Potential improvement scenarios for the I‐45 Freight Corridor were evaluated using a case study approach. For each improvement strategy, case studies were identified and reviewed to determine benefits and/or negative outcomes relative to the four identified freight performance goals. Each potential strategy was evaluated and assigned an effectiveness rating of Highly Effective, Somewhat Effective, or Not Effective for each of the four goal areas based on the case study results. A score was assigned to each goal area, by segment, based on the effectiveness of the strategy to address the need, and the performance and condition rating of the segment for that goal area.
February 2016 9
WHAT WILL THE FUTURE OF FREIGHT MOVEMENT ON I-45 LOOK LIKE?
Recommendations of the I‐45 FCP provide a master plan for implementing freight mobility improvements along the I‐45 corridor. They identify policy, operational, and infrastructure investment improvement strategies to address freight needs between Galveston and Dallas in three timeframes: short‐term, intermediate, and longer term. This plan will assist TxDOT in achieving the goals of supporting private sector supply chains, enhancing freight mobility, safety, efficiency, reliability, and congestion, and improving the economic competitiveness of the region and state. The actions and investments identified will help to provide efficient, reliable and safe freight transportation along the corridor while maintaining quality of life in the adjacent communities. While the TFMP has set broad freight movement objectives and performance targets for the state’s freight network, the I‐ 45 FCP identifies and recommends improvements to address specific needs along this vital freight corridor. TxDOT Districts along the I‐45 Freight Corridor (Houston, Bryan, and Dallas) and TxDOT Administration will utilize the I‐45 FCP recommendations as a guidebook for freight system improvements in the I‐45 corridor. Recommended short‐ and long‐term improvement strategies, including infrastructure enhancements, operational improvements, and freight policies, will be implemented along I‐45 to create a cohesive, freight‐ friendly corridor. Passage of Proposition 7 by Texas voters in November of 2015 will provide additional funds for TxDOT to begin to develop the recommended strategies along the corridor. Additionally, the federal FAST Act, enacted in December of 2015, provides dedicated Federal funding for freight projects on the Highway Primary Freight Network (HPFN) which may help to advance the recommended strategies in the project development process. To prioritize the recommendations within this Plan, TxDOT should identify freight related factors within their project development and prioritization process on Freight Network highways such as I‐45 to highlight freight‐centric needs within the state. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
The recommended improvement strategies represent policies and programs that have the highest potential of improving freight operations along the I‐45 freight corridor. Each of the recommended strategies were evaluated to determine location‐specific implementation and timing based on identified needs and recognition of the planned and programmed projects within each corridor segment. In addition to the recommended strategies, the plan also identified TxDOT planned and programed projects along I‐45 between its southern terminus in Galveston and I‐20 in Dallas, to understand where improvements that might facilitate freight flows are already in progress. The following maps show the recommended quick start and multimodal enhancement improvement strategies as well as planned and programed projects by segment for each TxDOT district. In addition to the strategies shown on the maps below, there are also recommended Horizon strategies which would have a corridor‐wide, staged implementation. A logical sequence would be determined based on freight movements, volumes, origins, and destinations. The recommended Horizon strategies are:
New freight movement technologies Conversion to "bridgeless" corridor (no bridges crossing mainlines) Conversion to heavy truck corridor The implementation of these Horizon strategies would ultimately involve bundling many of the recommended Quick Start and Multimodal Network Enhancements projects and strategies, and may include other actions that have not been recommended as part of this plan.
February 2016 10
Dallas District Freight Recommendations
Segment 10 (I‐20 to FM 660 in Ferris) Programmed projects: None Planned projects: None Recommendations Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; truckload consolidation; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public education/safety campaign Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 9 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6”; interchange improvements at I‐20; integrated corridor management; pavement rehabilitation; and roadway reconstruction
Segment 8 – Dallas District portion (SH 31 in Corsicana – US 79 near Buffalo): Segment 9 (FM 660 in Ferris – SH 31 in Corsicana): Programmed projects: Widen mainline Programmed projects: Widen mainline Planned projects: None Planned projects: None Recommendations: Recommendations Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion avoidance; truckload consolidation; detailed corridor monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion education/safety campaign monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 6 bridges crossing education/safety campaign the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6”; Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 17 interchange improvements at US287/FM1394/SH84; integrated bridges crossing the primary freight network to corridor management; pavement rehabilitation; and roadway height clearance of 18’6”; interchange reconstruction improvements at I‐45BUS; integrated corridor management; pavement rehabilitation; and roadway reconstruction
February 2016 11
Bryan District Freight Recommendations
Segment 8 – Bryan District portion (SH 31 in Corsicana – US 79 near Buffalo): Programmed projects: Seal coat Planned projects: Widen mainline; rehabilitate roadway; and seal coat Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public education/safety campaign Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 9 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6”; interchange improvements at US287/FM1394/SH84; integrated corridor management; pavement rehabilitation; and roadway reconstruction Segment 7(US 79 near Buffalo – SH 75 in Huntsville): Programmed projects: None Planned projects: Widen mainline and pavement overlay Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public education/safety campaign Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 10 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6”; interchange improvements at US287/FM1394/SH84; and integrated corridor management Segment 6 – Bryan District portion (SH 75 in Huntsville – SH 242 south of Conroe): Programmed projects: None Planned projects: Widen mainline Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public education/ safety campaign Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 9 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6” and 1 bridge crossing the secondary network to a height clearance of 16’6”; interchange improvements at US287/FM1394/SH84; integrated corridor management; variable pricing HOV; and add general purpose lanes/capacity
February 2016 12
Houston District Freight Recommendations, 1 of 2
Segment 6 – Houston District portion (SH 75 in Huntsville – SH 242 south of Conroe): Programmed projects: Construct park and ride lot and create 2 managed lanes Planned projects: Widen mainline; construct northbound frontage road; ramp modifications; and add auxiliary lanes Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public education/safety campaign Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 8 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6”; interchange improvements at US287/FM1394/SH84; integrated corridor management; variable pricing HOV; and add general purpose lanes/capacity
Segment 5 (SH 242 south of Conroe ‐ FM 1960): Programmed projects: Create 2 managed lanes Planned projects: Ramp modifications and add auxiliary lanes Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public education/safety campaign Multimodal Enhancements: increase 8 bridges to crossing the primary freight network height clearance of 18’6”; integrated corridor management; variable pricing HOV; and add general purpose lanes/capacity
Segment 4 (FM 1960 – I‐610N): Programmed projects: Create 2 managed lanes; high mast illumination; transportation system management; and reconstruct frontage roads Planned projects: Widen mainline and frontage roads; add managed lanes express lanes or HOV lanes; andreconfigure interchanges Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; truckload consolidation; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; and public education/safety campaign Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 15 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6”; bridge rehabilitation/replacement/reconstruction; interchange improvements at 610N; BW 8; integrated corridor management; variable pricing HOV; and add general purpose lanes/capacity
February 2016 13
Houston District Freight Recommendations, 2 of 2
Segment 3 (I‐610N – I‐10):
Programmed projects: High mast illumination; transportation system management; and reconstruct frontage roads Planned projects: Widen mainline and frontage roads; reconfigure interchanges; and add managed lanes, express lanes, or HOV lanes Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information, ITS collision avoidance, truckload consolidation, detailed corridor safety analysis, enhanced weigh in motion monitoring, bright striping of low bridges, public education/safety campaign, and restricted truck lanes Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 6 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6”, interchange improvements at I‐10, US 59, integrated corridor management, variable pricing HOV, pavement rehabilitation, roadway reconstruction,
and add general purpose lanes/capacity Segment 2 (I‐10 – I‐610S): Programmed projects: High mast illumination; transportation system management; reconstruct frontage roads Planned projects: Widen mainline and frontage roads; reconfigure interchanges; and add managed lanes express lanes or HOV lanes Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; truckload consolidation; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced WIM weigh in motion monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; public education/safety campaign; and restricted truck lanes
Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 18 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6” and 3 bridges crossing the secondary freight network to a height clearance of 16’6”; bridge rehabilitation/replacement/reconstruction interchange improvements at I‐610S; integrated corridor management; variable pricing HOV; pavement rehabilitation; roadway reconstruction; and add general purpose lanes/capacity
Segment 1 (I‐610S ‐ SH 87 in Galveston):
Programmed projects: High mast illumination; transportation system management; reconstruct frontage roads; and pavement overlay Planned projects: Widen mainline and frontage roads; reconfigure interchanges; add managed lanes express lanes or HOV lanes; and build direct connector to Loop 197 Recommendations: Quick Start: CVO traveler information; ITS collision avoidance; changes in port operation/off peak hours; truckload consolidation; detailed corridor safety analysis; enhanced weigh in motion
monitoring; bright striping of low bridges; public education/safety campaign; and restricted truck lanes Multimodal Enhancements: Reconstruction of 20 bridges crossing the primary freight network to height clearance of 18’6”; integrated corridor management; variable pricing HOV; pavement rehabilitation; roadway reconstruction; and add general purpose lanes/capacity
February 2016 14
People Values People are the Department’s most important customer, asset, and resource. The well‐being, safety, and quality of life for Texans and the traveling public are of the utmost concern to the Department. We focus on relationship building, customer service, and partnerships.
Accountability We accept responsibility for our actions and promote open communication and transparency at all times.
Trust We strive to earn and maintain confidence through reliable and ethical decision‐making.
Honesty We conduct ourselves with the highest degree of integrity, respect, and truthfulness.
A forward‐thinking leader delivering mobility, enabling economic opportunity, Vision and enhancing quality of life for all Texans
Mission Work with others to provide safe and reliable transportation solutions for Texas.
February 2016 15
February 2016 16
Final Report I-45 Freight Corridor Plan
February 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables ...... v List of Figures...... vi Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... vii 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Report Content ...... 2 1.2 Study Area ...... 4 1.3 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 4 2. Freight Corridor Goals and Performance Measures ...... 6 2.1 Statewide Freight Goals and Freight Program Recommendations ...... 6 2.2 Corridor Goals and Performance Measures ...... 7 3. I-45 Corridor Freight Needs Assessment ...... 10 3.1 Primary Corridor Infrastructure Features ...... 10 3.1.1 I-45 Highway Elements ...... 10 3.1.2 Corridor Rail Elements ...... 21 3.2 Current I-45 Operating Conditions ...... 23 3.2.1 Traffic Volumes ...... 23 3.2.2 Level of Service ...... 27 3.2.3 Average Truck Speeds ...... 30 3.2.4 Highway Freight Bottlenecks ...... 30 3.2.5 Crash/Safety Experience ...... 34 3.3 Rail Operating Conditions ...... 35 3.4 I-45 Corridor Current Performance ...... 38 3.4.1 Quantitative Performance Measures ...... 38 3.4.2 Qualitative Performance Measures ...... 41 3.5 Freight Forecasts ...... 43 3.5.1 Study Area Freight Flow ...... 43 3.5.2 I-45 Corridor Freight Flow ...... 45 3.6 Planned Improvements ...... 50 4. Identification and Evaluation of I-45 Freight Improvement Alternatives ...... 64 4.1 Evaluation Framework ...... 64 4.1.1 Case Study Evaluation Approach ...... 64 4.1.2 Strategy Scoring ...... 65 4.2 Potential Improvement Strategies ...... 67 4.2.1 Quick Start Projects/Strategies ...... 67 4.2.2 Multimodal Enhancement Projects ...... 68 4.2.3 Horizon Projects/Policies ...... 69
February 2016 iii
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Page
4.3 Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies ...... 70 4.3.1 Quick Start Projects / Strategies ...... 70 4.3.2 Multimodal Network Enhancement Projects ...... 72 4.3.3 Horizon Strategies ...... 74 5. Recommended Improvement Strageties ...... 75 5.1 Quick Start Projects/Strategies ...... 75 5.2 Multimodal Enhancement Projects ...... 76 5.3 Horizon Strategies ...... 78 5.4 Anticipated Outcomes ...... 84 6. Next Steps ...... 85
February 2016 iv
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
List of Tables
Page
Table 2-1: I-45 Performance Objectives, Measures and Threshold Benchmarks ...... 8 Table 3-1: I-45 Mainline Miles ...... 11 Table 3-2: System Interchanges ...... 15 Table 3-3: TxDOT Bridge Condition Descriptions ...... 18 Table 3-4: I-45 Bridge Conditions ...... 19 Table 3-5: Level of Service (LOS) General Characteristics ...... 27 Table 3-6: I-45 Freight Bottleneck Locations ...... 31 Table 3-7: I-45 Goals and Performance Measures and Threshold Metrics ...... 39 Table 3-8: Condition and Performance Scores ...... 40 Table 3-9: I-45 Freight Corridor: Goal Area Segment Scores ...... 40 Table 3-10: Qualitative Condition and Performance Scores ...... 42 Table 3-11: Corridor Counties Total Freight ...... 43 Table 3-12: Major Freight Commodities (I-45 Corridor Counties) ...... 44 Table 3-13: I-45 Corridor Commodity Flow: I-45 plus Parallel Rail Lines, 2010 ...... 47 Table 3-14: I-45 Corridor Commodity Flow: I-45 plus Parallel Rail Lines, 2040 ...... 48 Table 3-15: Interpretative Diagrammatic Legend ...... 51 Table 3-16: Needs, Planned and Programmed Projects ...... 55 Table 4-1: Improvement Scores by Goal Area Ratings and Improvement Effectiveness ...... 66 Table 4-2: Quick Start Strategy Potential Improvement Scores...... 71 Table 4-3: Multimodal Network Enhancement Potential Improvement Scores ...... 73 Table 4-4: Horizon Potential Improvement Scores ...... 74 Table 5-1: Quick Start Strategy Application Recommendations ...... 79 Table 5-2: Multimodal Network Enhancement Strategy Application Recommendations ...... 81 Table 5-3 Horizon Strategy Application Recommendations ...... 83
February 2016 v
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1-1 Freight Corridor Plan Process ...... 2 Figure 1-2: I-45 Freight Corridor Study Area ...... 4 Figure 2-1: Types of Improvement Strategies ...... 7 Figure 2-2: I-45 FCP Goal Alignment ...... 9 Figure 3-1: Freight Network Elements ...... 13 Figure 3-2: Frontage Roads ...... 14 Figure 3-3: Interchanges with the Texas Freight Network ...... 17 Figure 3-4: Mainline Corridor Bridges Height Categorized ...... 19 Figure 3-5: Pavement Condition ...... 20 Figure 3-6: Intermodal Facilities ...... 22 Figure 3-7: 2011 Average Daily Traffic ...... 24 Figure 3-8: Average Daily Trucks ...... 25 Figure 3-9: Truck Percentage of Average Daily Traffic ...... 26 Figure 3-10: Level-of-Service Descriptions ...... 27 Figure 3-11: Volume to Capacity Ratios ...... 29 Figure 3-12: 2011 Average Daily Truck Speeds ...... 32 Figure 3-13: I-45 Interchanges Identified as Freight Bottlenecks ...... 33 Figure 3-14: I-45 Corridor Crashes ...... 34 Figure 3-15: Corridor 2010 Rail Tonnage ...... 36 Figure 3-16: Rail Weight Restrictions ...... 37 Figure 3-17: I-45 Corridor Segmentation ...... 39 Figure 3-18: Geographic Zone for Corridor Freight Analysis ...... 45
February 2016 vi
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ATRI American Transportation Research Institute CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle CRIS (TxDOT) Crash Records Information System CVO Commercial Vehicle Operations DCIS (TxDOT) Design and Construction Information System FCP Freight Corridor Plan FHWA Federal Highway Administration FM Farm‐to‐Market (Road) FPM Freight Performance Measures FRATIS Freight Advance Traveler Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System HMA Hot Mix Asphalt HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System HOS Hours of Service HOV High Occupancy Vehicle I‐45 Interstate Highway 45 I‐45 FCP I‐45 Freight Corridor Plan ICM Integrated Corridor Management IRI International Roughness Index ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems IVI Intelligent Vehicle Initiative KCS Kansas City Southern Railway LOS Level of Service mph Miles per hour MVMT Million vehicle miles travelled NBI National Bridge Inventory NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NYCDOT New York City Department of Transportation P&P Planned and Programmed (projects) PCC Portland Cement Concrete PTRA Port Terminal Railroad Association
February 2016 vii
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
RFID Radio Frequency Identification RHiNO (TxDOT) Road Highway Inventory Network SAMv3 Statewide Analysis Model version 3 SH State Highway STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program TFMP Texas Freight Mobility Plan THFN Texas Highway Freight Network TMC Traffic Management Center TRB Transportation Research Board TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation UP Union Pacific USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation UTP Unified Transportation Program V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio VWS Virtual Weigh Station WIM Weigh in Motion
February 2016 viii
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
1. Introduction
The efficient movement of freight, whether locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally, is critical to a state’s or region’s economic well‐being. Freight transportation is an integral component of critical supply chains, whether the freight materials being moved are finished goods or raw materials enroute to processing. Lower overall costs of goods and materials obtained through efficient freight movement thus create an economic advantage.
The Interstate Highway 45 (I‐45) freight corridor is an integrated regional freight network of critical importance to the state of Texas, moving massive freight volumes supporting the Texas economy and international commerce. The I‐45 freight corridor is comprised of the 276 miles of I‐45, plus the multimodal networks supported by arterial highways and collector routes, a Class 1 railroad line, terminal railroads, seaports, major air cargo airports, intermodal facilities, inland ports, and associated facilities including many industrial, warehousing, and distribution centers. Thus, the I‐45 freight corridor is far from just a “highway.” According to the recently completed Texas Freight Mobility Plan (TFMP), the multimodal I‐45 freight corridor between Galveston and Dallas is one of the most heavily traversed freight corridors in the state of Texas. Nearly half of all truck freight in Texas is moved through the eleven counties of the corridor. Connecting Houston/Galveston and Dallas/Fort Worth, two of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation and the two largest in the state, the corridor provides primary access for freight movement between those two major markets and to major seaports in the Houston Gulf Coast area. The importance of the I‐45 freight corridor to the movement of goods extends beyond Texas because much of the freight originating or passing through the corridor is destined to other domestic and international markets.
February 2016 1
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
1.1 Study Purpose and Report Content
The purpose of this planning effort is to identify corridor freight needs that can be addressed by public policy and investment through freight improvement strategies along the I‐45 corridor. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has chosen to develop the I‐45 Freight Corridor Plan (I‐45 FCP) to achieve the department’s goals for supporting private sector supply chains, enhancing freight mobility, and improving the economic competitiveness of the region and state. The study, which began in January 2014, was undertaken to identify actions and investments that will provide efficient, reliable and safe movement of goods along the corridor while maintaining quality of life in the adjacent communities.
Figure 1‐1 Freight Corridor Plan Process The I‐45 FCP is a direct result of work done by TxDOT in Data Collection preparing the state’s first Stakeholder Roadside Driver Improvements Freight Surveys Interviews Interviews Assessment statewide freight plan, the TFMP, which has set broad freight movement objectives Needs Assessment and performance targets for Existing Conditions and Forecasted Performance the state’s freight network. Performance The I‐45 FCP will serve as a master plan for freight Improvement Alternative Development system improvements in the I‐45 corridor, identifying Develop Corridor Improvement Alternative Scenarios short and long term improvement strategies, including infrastructure Improvement Alternative Scenario Evaluation Asset Mobility and Economic enhancements, operational Safety Management Connectivity Competitiveness improvements, and freight policies. The major steps in the process of developing the I‐45 Freight Corridor Plan I‐45 FCP are illustrated in Figure 1‐1 and described below
Data collection – Data collected for the I‐45 FCP included corridor stakeholder interviews and surveys. These stakeholder interviews and surveys helped identify motor carrier operations and issues in the I‐45 corridor, providing insight into freight related business operations, typical freight volumes, service levels and infrastructure requirements of corridor stakeholders. The data also provided perspectives from stakeholders about the corridor’s freight movement strengths, problems, and opportunities. In addition to data collected from stakeholders, data was also gathered from a variety of federal, state and proprietary databases. These data sources include but are not limited to the Texas Roadway‐Highway Inventory Database (RHiNo), TxDOT Pavement Management Information System (PMIS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Bridge Inventory, and TRANSEARCH. Data from these sources and others helped to identify corridor
February 2016 2
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
conditions and current and forecasted freight flows along the corridor. Data collection was documented in a series of technical memoranda.
Needs assessment – An assessment of the ability of I‐45 to meet the freight mobility challenges of the region provided critical information regarding infrastructure condition and long‐term freight mobility challenges. Key to the needs assessment was comparing the physical and operating conditions of I‐45 to corridor performance measures that reflect the statewide freight goals defined in the TFMP; these freight goals and corridor performance metrics are composed of safety, asset management, mobility, and economic development goals and are summarized in Chapter 3. The assessment drew heavily from TxDOT asset databases, traffic counts, and traffic operations practices to determine freight movement needs. Forecasts of freight movement, by mode, tonnage, commodity value, and origins and destinations of freight, added to the existing conditions assessment to provide a long‐term picture of freight movement needs. Chapter 3 summarizes the corridor needs assessment; more detail was documented in a set of technical memoranda.
Improvement alternatives development – In considering strategies for improving freight flow in the corridor, the TxDOT study team drew on national and international experience to identify a broad range of improvement alternatives that could be deployed in short‐term (1‐4 years), mid‐term (5‐10 years), or long‐term (10+ years) timeframes to address the needs identified in the needs assessment. An alternatives evaluation framework drawing heavily on case studies from across the nation was developed to assess the potential effectiveness of the strategies if deployed by TxDOT within the I‐45 corridor. The identification and evaluation framework and candidate list of potential improvement strategies are described in Chapter 4.
Improvement alternatives scenario evaluation – Each of the alternative improvement strategies were evaluated for their likely effectiveness in addressing corridor needs, tempered by the relative costs of the alternatives. Effectiveness in addressing each of the four goal areas was considered: 1. Safety 2. Asset Management 3. Mobility and reliability 4. Economic competitiveness and efficiency A detailed discussion of the alternatives strategies evaluation can be found in Chapter 4.
I‐45 Freight Corridor Plan – The potential effectiveness of each of the alternative strategies presented in Chapter 4 was compared to select a master plan of I‐45 freight corridor improvements. In compiling these recommendations, consideration was given to programmed or planned TxDOT improvements in the corridor that, while not freight‐specific, could yield freight benefits. In compiling the freight improvement recommendations, consideration was also given to the complementary benefits that could result from implementation of individual strategies. Recommended corridor improvement strategies for the three timeframes, responsive to corridor needs and policy opportunities, are presented in Chapter 5.
February 2016 3
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
1.2 Study Area
The I‐45 FCP study area Figure 1‐2: I‐45 Freight Corridor Study Area consists of eleven counties traversed by I‐45 as shown in Figure 1‐2. The eleven counties are: Galveston, Harris, Montgomery, Walker, Madison, Leon, Freestone, Navarro, Ellis, Dallas, and Tarrant. These counties have a 2010 Census combined population of over 9.3 million people. The study area encompasses approximately 10,280 square miles and includes the urban areas of: Galveston, Houston, Conroe, The Woodlands, and Dallas. The portion of I‐ 45 included in the study extends 276 miles from State Highway (SH) 87 in Galveston, the southern terminus of I‐45, to I‐20 in Dallas. The interchange with I‐20 was established as the northern‐most limit to the corridor because truck flows become highly distributed within and through the Dallas region north of that point. Along the length of the study boundaries, I‐45 connects to the following interstate or major US highways: I‐10, I‐69, I‐20, I‐610, US 59, US 79, US 84, US 190, and US 287. Together with I‐45, these highways form a major part of the primary and secondary tiers of the Texas Freight Highway Network. 1.3 Stakeholder Engagement
Freight stakeholder engagement was integral to the I‐45 FCP study process and occurred throughout the project. The study drew I‐45 inferences from the findings of the TFMP, including input gained from statewide surveys of motor carriers, freight shippers and receivers, and truck drivers. The study team sought participation from elected officials, motor carriers and railroads, truck drivers, economic
February 2016 4
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report development professionals, and local and regional planners along the I‐45 corridor. Principal elements of the Stakeholder Engagement Program included the following:
TFMP Shipper and Carrier Surveys – The TFMP study team conducted statewide stakeholder outreach activities with freight carriers, shippers, and receivers. To avoid duplicating efforts and making repeated contacts with the same businesses in Texas, the I‐45 FCP team coordinated with the TFMP team to enhance the survey for I‐45 corridor recipients in order to gain additional information valuable for the I‐45 study. Questions specific to I‐45 helped identify traffic bottlenecks in the corridor as well as the type of operation, type of freight generated, important transportation service requirements, volume of freight generated, and identification of system strengths, weaknesses, and institutional issues.
I‐45 Corridor Specific Freight Stakeholders Interviews and Surveys – In addition to the TFMP shipper and carrier surveys, more detailed, freight‐specific interviews and surveys were conducted with additional stakeholders along the I‐45 corridor. The objective of these interviews was to gain information on the freight movement challenges faced by businesses that rely on the I‐45 freight corridor to receive production inputs, move finished products to markets, and move goods between transfer points.
I‐45 Freight Corridor Listening Sessions –Freight listening sessions were held along the I‐45 corridor in May and June of 2014, in the Houston area, Dallas area, and mid‐corridor. The purpose of the listening sessions was to provide a second forum for the I‐45 FCP needs identification and assessment and provide input into freight project prioritization and freight improvement strategies. The sessions allowed for an open dialogue on the I‐45 corridor freight needs, challenges, strengths, and opportunities. The listening sessions represented diverse stakeholders, including private sector, public sector and academic research institutions.
Key Stakeholder Meetings – The final stakeholder engagement element was facilitation of two sets of Key Stakeholder meetings held in Houston and Dallas in June and October of 2015, which were attended by a total of 56 corridor stakeholders. The objective of these meetings was to gain feedback from invited elected officials, freight shippers and receivers, motor carriers and railroads, economic development professionals, and local and regional planners regarding the freight movement deficiencies and opportunities that had been identified by the study team. Particularly valuable was information confirming hot spot and bottleneck location data and insights into freight movements from system users. Stakeholders also provided feedback on the evaluation of alternative freight improvement strategies and made recommendations regarding the packaging of alternatives that have been reflected in the final series of corridor improvements.
February 2016 5
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
2. Freight Corridor Goals and Performance Measures
The TFMP was developed to serve as a blueprint for an integrated multimodal freight transportation network in Texas. The I‐45 FCP is a stand‐alone plan, developed within the framework of the TFMP. It is a part of the larger TxDOT initiative to extend the freight planning efforts to the regional and corridor level, with those activities serving to advance implementation of the freight policies and programs identified in the TFMP. For the I‐45 FCP, a first step consistent with this initiative was to identify freight corridor‐specific goals and associated performance metrics that aligned with the statewide freight goals in the TFMP, but which also reflected the unique characteristics and challenges of the I‐45 corridor. 2.1 Statewide Freight Goals and Freight Program Recommendations
Statewide freight goals for the TFMP were developed to be consistent with the federal MAP‐21 National Freight Goals, the TxDOT Strategic Plan, and the Texas Transportation Plan. Each statewide goal is linked to multiple performance objectives and measures providing a method to quantify and track changes in the performance of the Texas Highway Freight Network. The TFMP’s nine goals include:
1. Safety – Improve multimodal transportation safety. 2. Asset Management – Maintain and preserve infrastructure assets using cost‐beneficial treatments. 3. Mobility and Reliability – Reduce congestion and improve system efficiency and performance. 4. Multimodal Connectivity – Provide transportation choices and improve system connectivity. 5. Stewardship – Manage resources responsibly and be accountable in decision‐making. 6. Customer Service – Understand and incorporate customer desires in decision‐making processes and be open and forthright in all agency communications. 7. Sustainable Funding – Identify and sustain funding sources for all modes. 8. Economic Competitiveness and Efficiency – Improve the contribution of the Texas freight transportation system to economic competitiveness, productivity and development. Create opportunities to drive growth in the economic efficiency and productivity of freight movements through targeted investment in the transportation network. 9. Technology – Improve the safety and efficiency of freight transportation through the development and utilization of innovative technological solutions. Responsive to these statewide freight goals, the TFMP, in “creating a plan for success,” recommends freight improvement strategies that fall in three categories: policies, programs, and projects as illustrated in Figure 2‐1. The recommendations identify the freight mobility challenges facing Texas: aging infrastructure, urban congestion and bottlenecks, safety concerns, system capacity constraints, system management and operations issues, rural and multimodal connectivity challenges, border and ports‐of‐entry challenges, lack of public education and awareness of freight issues, lack of institutional coordination, and funding challenges. Infrastructure issues include low bridge clearance, poor structures
February 2016 6
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report and pavement condition, and roadway geometrics that are not freight conducive. The recommendations also would position Texas to take advantage of trends and new markets and opportunities, such as the opening of new markets for goods produced in the state, new technologies, agriculture and energy production.
Figure 2‐1: Types of Improvement Strategies
Source: Texas Freight Mobility Plan, Draft, October 2015
2.2 Corridor Goals and Performance Measures
Four TFMP goals were identified as applicable to address challenges and opportunities at the corridor level: Safety, Asset Management, Mobility and Reliability, and Economic Competitiveness and Efficiency. Technology was not included as a separate goal for the I‐45 FCP, but technology was incorporated into potential improvement alternatives as they were developed. To assess infrastructure and operating conditions along the I‐45 freight corridor, performance measures and metrics were established, data sources were identified, and sufficiency benchmarks were developed for each goal, to allow ratings against the standards and comparison of I‐45 segments. These goals and associated performance objectives, measures, threshold metrics for the I‐45 freight corridor goals are identified in Table 2‐1.
February 2016 7
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 2‐1: I‐45 Performance Objectives, Measures and Threshold Benchmarks
I‐45 Corridor I‐45 Corridor TFMP Goal Performance Performance Threshold Benchmarks Criteria Basis Objectives Measures Truck crash rate Crash rates on I‐45 for Improve I‐45 Truck < 120.7/mtvm1 Lower than state rate Safety Trucks/Commercial Safety for facility type Vehicles Truck fatality rate < 1.20/mtvm1 <5% of miles at International FHWA Pavement Pavement condition Roughness Index (IRI) Performance Standards > 170 Deck, Superstructure Maintain I‐45 in Asset Bridge condition and Substructure TFMP standards State of Good Management Rating of 5 or better Repair TFMP bridge clearance % or # >=18 ‘6” policy Bridge vertical recommendations clearances Current FHWA design % or # >= 16’ standard Urban/Suburban: LOS D Average Daily Level of TxDOT Roadway Design or better; Service Manual Mobility and Improve truck Rural: LOS C or better Reliability travel speed National Performance Average daily truck 80% of posted speed Research Data Set, speeds 2014 Economic <3.0 ratio of 95th National Performance Improve Truck Truck Reliability Competitiveness percentile peak to off‐ Research Data Set data, Travel Reliability Planning Time Index and Efficiency peak speeds 2014
1. Million truck vehicle miles
These performance measures are the metrics by which the current and forecasted operations along the I‐45 freight corridor were assessed. These corridor‐based goals align with the statewide freight goals, TxDOT’s statewide Transportation Plan, TxDOT’s Strategic goals, and the National freight goals established as part of MAP‐21 as highlighted in Figure 2‐2.
February 2016 8
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 2‐2: I‐45 FCP Goal Alignment
Source: Texas Freight Mobility Plan, Draft, October 2015.
February 2016 9 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
3. I-45 Corridor Freight Needs Assessment
This chapter of the report provides an assessment of the freight needs of the I‐45 corridor, by examining the following:
Inventory and physical condition of existing infrastructure of I‐45 affecting freight flows
Existing operating conditions on I‐45 affecting freight flows on the corridor; focusing on congestion, truck travel speed, and travel reliability
Programmed and planned improvements that are currently being implemented by TxDOT, to understand where improvements that might facilitate freight flows are already in process
Forecasts of freight flows, by commodity tonnage and value, and impacts on critical supply chains to provide better understanding of important freight flows between the Houston‐Galveston and Dallas regions
Materials presented in this chapter are supported by a series of technical memoranda that are available in TxDOT’s records of this study for more detailed review. 3.1 Primary Corridor Infrastructure Features
An examination of existing corridor freight conditions and performance is important to forming a baseline understanding of related multimodal transportation systems assets. The condition and extent of those assets are integral to supporting freight transport, and the carrying capacity and efficiency of freight movement through the corridor. This section summarizes existing freight transportation assets within the I‐45 corridor. Freight assets are described and examined by mode and for intermodal facilities. Conclusions about the current adequacy of freight assets in the I‐45 corridor are presented at the close of Section 3.2.
3.1.1 I-45 Highway Elements
I‐45 and parallel Class 1 railroad mainlines are the primary surface modes for moving freight between the Houston‐Galveston and Dallas regions, as well as between Texas marine ports and inland destinations. Together, the I‐45 rail/highway corridor supports an intricate system of ports, terminals, warehousing, and distribution centers, as well as individual shippers and receivers of goods in the study area. I‐45 itself has been identified in the Texas Freight Mobility Plan as a Primary Roadway of the Texas Highway Freight Network (THFN). The Primary Freight Network roadways are those which are forecasted by TRANSEARCH® to carry at least 50 million tons of freight annually by 2040 and include the interstate highways as well as many U.S. highways in Texas. The secondary roadways carry less total tonnage of freight, but provide the necessary connections between Texas population centers, freight gateways (ports, warehousing centers, etc.) and generators (such as employment clusters) to the primary roadways.
I‐45 evolved as the current 276‐mile long freeway from Galveston, through the Houston metropolitan area, to its terminus with I‐20 in Dallas over a period of decades. Over time highways such as US 75 were upgraded to freeway and interstate highway standards and relief routes for smaller towns and cities (such as
February 2016 10 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Huntsville) were built. As a result of this continuous construction and expansion bridges and pavement in older, unimproved sections are aging, lateral and vertical clearance of bridges and other structures sometimes do not meet current design standards, and (particularly in the Houston region) the highway experiences extreme traffic congestion due to heavy commuter use of the highway. Figure 3‐1 shows the I‐45 corridor freight network elements including the intersecting locations of THFN primary freight highways (I‐20, I‐10, I‐610, I‐69, US 59, US 90 A) and secondary freight highways, major cargo seaports, major cargo airports, and inland port facilities. In addition, it shows the existing number of through lanes for both directions along I‐45 through the length of the corridor.
Mainline Lanes Number of lanes is an indirect measure of roadway capacity. Throughout its length, I‐45 varies from 4 lanes to more than 8 lanes (total lanes in both directions). From Galveston through Houston to Montgomery County, I‐45 has 6 or more lanes. From Montgomery County through Navarro County, I‐45 is a 4‐lane highway. From Ellis County to I‐20, approaching Dallas, I‐45 is a 6‐lane highway. Table 3‐1 lists the total main lane mileage by number of lanes.
Table 3‐1: I‐45 Mainline Miles Number of Mainline Lanes Miles 4 144.7 6 81.4 8 or more 51.5 Total 277.6
Source: TxDOT RHiNO data
Frontage Roads I‐45 has adjacent frontage roads along most of the roadway between I‐20 and Galveston, as depicted in
February 2016 11 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐2 , although there are intermittent breaks typically around river bridges and at some system to system interchanges. I‐45 frontage roads provide access to residential and commercial land uses and provide for local traffic circulation, often reducing the number of short trips using the I‐45 mainline. In addition to providing local access, frontage roads provide critical alternate diversion routes during temporary main line closures (e.g., crash incidents, construction, or weather). There are portions of I‐45 without frontage roads in a few areas, notably downtown Houston and also on short sections in more rural areas of the corridor. In a number of locations there are two‐way frontage roads along only one side of I‐45.
February 2016 12 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐1: Freight Network Elements
Source: TFMP
February 2016 13 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐2: Frontage Roads
Source: TxDOT RHiNO database
February 2016 14 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
I-45 Interchanges I‐45 itself is the conduit for moving people and goods within the study area. Access to the corridor is often controlled by, or restricted by, conditions affecting operation of interchanges with intersecting roadways. Between its southern terminus at SH 87 in Galveston and I‐20 in Dallas, I‐45 has 154 numbered interchanges (not including “lettered” suffix interchanges separately). Some of the numbered interchanges work in tandem such that there are approximately 120 distinct interchanges. The sub‐sections that follow discuss system to system interchanges; local interchanges; interchanges with the THFN; and identified interchange issues.
System interchanges: System to system interchanges allow for uninterrupted flow between controlled access highways, typically freeways or expressways, and typically process the highest volumes of traffic. The system to system interchanges in the I‐45 freight corridor are listed in Table 3‐2.
Table 3‐2: System Interchanges INTERCHANGE EXITS LOCATION SH 6/SH 146/SH 197 7A/B/C Galveston Emmett F Lowery/Farm‐to‐Market (FM) 1764 16 Galveston NASA Road 1 24 Galveston SH 8/Sam Houston Parkway South (toll) 31/32 Houston I‐610 South Loop 40B/40C Houston SH 5 44B Houston US 59 /I‐69(Southwest Freeway/Eastex 46A/46B Houston Freeway)/ SH 288 (South Freeway) I‐10 48A/48B Houston I‐610 North Loop 51 Houston SH 8/Sam Houston Pkwy North 60D/61 Houston Hardy Toll Road 72/72B Spring SH 19 113 Huntsville I‐45 Business North 235/235A Corsicana US 287 247 Ennis South Central Expressway 275 Dallas I‐20 276A/276B Dallas
Source: Review of Google Maps and TxDOT RHiNO data.
Local Interchanges: Local interchanges allow for access from a controlled access highway to the arterial road system typically at a signalized or stop controlled intersection. The 138 local interchanges within the I‐45 corridor are listed in Appendix A of Technical Memo 3.6, which is included in TxDOT’s project records of this study.
February 2016 15 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Primary/Secondary Freight Highway Network Interchanges: A subset of the system and local interchanges consists of those interchanges with other TFHN roadways. Because these are key interchanges for freight flow, their safe, smooth operation for motor carriers is important. I‐45 has thirty‐one interchanges with the THFN, shown in Figure 3‐3. Five of the seven I‐45 interchanges with the Primary Highway Freight Network are system to system interchanges. The exceptions are US 90A in Houston and SH 105 in Conroe. Twenty of the twenty‐four I‐45 interchanges with the Secondary Highway Freight Network are local interchanges; the exceptions are SH 6/SH 146/SH 197 in Galveston, NASA Road 1 in Webster, SH 19 in Huntsville, and US 287 in Ennis .
Identified Interchange Issues: During interviews with the study team, stakeholders were asked to identify interchanges where they perceived problems with either capacity, geometry, or overall operations. Named I‐ 45 interchanges included:
I‐10 I‐20 I‐610 North SH 75 and US 79/SH 164 in Buffalo US 59 SH 7 in Centerville SH 84 in Fairfield FM 1394 in Richland I‐610 South Shepard Drive US 287 and I‐45 Business in Corsicana
During inspection trips of the corridor and review of TxDOT asset inventory data, each of these interchanges was examined for safety, vertical and horizontal clearance adequacy, operations, and predictability. These considerations were included in subsequent overall corridor and segment assessments.
I-45 Structures (Overpasses and Underpasses) Providing sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance and adequately maintaining the condition of the bridges along I‐45 is another important factor for efficient and safe movement of goods. Bridge conditions affect transport costs since substandard bridges may require commercial vehicles to reroute or force vehicles to reduce load weight or cargo size to accommodate load and/or dimensional restrictions. Circuitous routing wastes fuel and slows deliveries; reloading or splitting loads requires more labor and equipment to move the same cargo. A major policy recommendation of TFMP was to raise the vertical clearance for all primary freight highways from the current minimum standard of 16’6” to 18’ 6”. Reflecting the age and evolving Interstate highway design criteria, a small number of bridges crossing I‐45 do not meet the current 16’ 6” minimum clearance specified in the TxDOT Roadway Design manual, and only nine of the bridges crossing over I‐45 mainlines meet the TFMP policy target of 18’ 6”.
February 2016 16 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐3: Interchanges with the Texas Freight Network
Source: TFMP and TxDOT RHiNO Data
February 2016 17 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Condition ratings: The most common method available for documenting and describing the physical condition of TxDOT’s bridges is the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition rating system. NBI requires state DOTs to inspect and report data for all highway bridges on the federal‐aid highway system over 20 feet long in their respective states.1 The NBI establishes condition ratings for all reported bridges through data from biennial bridge inspections that measure the estimated ability of a bridge to remain in service. Condition ratings are based on assessments for five various factors on a scale of 1 to 10, as described in Table 3‐3. These ratings are for three major bridge elements: deck (the riding surface and structure that directly carries vehicle loads); superstructure (the girders and beams that support the deck); and substructure (piers and abutments that support the bridge and transfer loads to the ground). Where applicable, condition ratings also are provided for two other bridge elements: channels and culverts.
Table 3‐3: TxDOT Bridge Condition Descriptions Code Description N NOT APPLICABLE 9 EXCELLENT CONDITION
8 VERY GOOD CONDITION No problems noted.
7 GOOD CONDITION Some minor problems.
6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION Structural elements show some minor deterioration.
5 FAIR CONDITION All primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour.
4 POOR CONDITION Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.
3 SERIOUS CONDITION Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.
2 CRITICAL CONDITION Advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken.
1 “IMMINENT” FAILURE Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious CONDITION vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service.
0 FAILED CONDITION Out service beyond corrective action.
Source: FHWA National Bridge Inventory
1 “States must identify bridges which require monitoring at intervals less than 2 years and increase the inspection frequency for these bridges as needed to assure adequate monitoring. States have the option either to continue inspecting the remaining bridges at least once every 2 years or to develop an alternative inspection program which specifies bridges that may be inspected at intervals longer than 2 years. While the NBIS does not specify a maximum interval between routine inspections, intervals should not exceed 4 years. Criteria used for selecting bridges that will have inspection intervals exceeding 2 years must be approved by the FHWA.”, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/t514021.cfm, January 17,2014.
February 2016 18 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Bridges in the I‐45 corridor are identified Table 3‐4: I‐45 Bridge Conditions as being in poor condition or worse when any one of the five major bridge elements has a condition of poor or worse. TxDOT bridge data show that a large majority of bridges on or over I‐45 are in fair or better condition and less than 1 percent of bridges are in poor or worse condition, as shown in Figure 3‐4. All four of the I‐45 bridges in poor or worse condition are in the Houston area.
Mainline Vertical Clearances: Current FHWA guidance prescribes 16’ of vertical clearance over the entire roadway width, including the shoulder, on Interstate highways. Additionally, the TxDOT Design Manual specifies a desirable minimum clearance of 16’6” for all roadways. However, a long‐term goal of the TFMP is to provide a minimum vertical clearance of 18’6” over Primary Freight Network roadways, such as I‐45. This provides clearance for trucks hauling double‐stacked containers. Currently 59 bridges crossing I‐45 do not meet the current 16’ 6” standard, 76 meet the current 16’6’ but not the target 18’6” clearance, while 23 bridges meet the TFMP policy target of 18’ 6”. Clearance over 12 secondary routes in the corridor do not meet the current TxDOT standard. The breakdown of clearance ranges is shown in Figure 3‐4. Figure 3‐4: Mainline Corridor Bridges Height Categorized
I‐45 Mainline (Primary) Vertical I‐45 ‐ Secondary Route Vertical Clearances Clearances (Includes overpasses and underpasses)
23, 15% 10, 6% 8, 67%
76, 48% 49, 31% 2, 17% 2, 16%
<15' 15' ‐ 16' 5" 16'6"‐18'6" >18'6" <15' 15' ‐ 16' 5" >16' 6"
Source: FHWA National Bridge Inventory Pavement Condition Pavement roughness is one measure of pavement condition. The International Roughness Index (IRI) measures the number of inches of rough pavement per mile and is routinely measured as part of the USDOT Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) by all states. TxDOT rates pavement roughness as “good” when its IRI value is less than 95; “acceptable” is less than 170; and “poor” is greater than 170. Figure 3‐5 maps the 2012 IRI for the I‐45 corridor. As can be seen in this figure, most of the I‐45 corridor pavement is in good or acceptable condition with a few exceptions, most of which are in the Houston‐Galveston Area.
February 2016 19 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐5: Pavement Condition
Source: HPMS 2012
February 2016 20 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report 3.1.2 Corridor Rail Elements
The rail freight network between the Dallas metropolitan area and the Houston‐Galveston area at the limits of the corridor is fairly dense with several competing rail lines and operators. The main Class I rail operators serving the I‐45 corridor between the Dallas and the Houston‐Galveston areas and the ports of Houston and Galveston are BNSF Railroad (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP). The Port Terminal Railroad Association (PTRA) provides service between the Port of Houston and the Class I rail lines. Kansas City Southern (KCS) also provides service to the Port of Houston, via trackage rights, but KCS’s main routes do not run within the I‐45 corridor, instead they cross the corridor from west to east.
The rail operations most significant to the I‐45 corridor are those running between the Dallas metropolitan area and Houston‐Galveston because these rail freight services compete with trucks moving goods in the I‐45 corridor. The BNSF and UP rail lines with the largest tonnage freight flow between the Dallas metropolitan area and the Houston‐Galveston region lie to the west of the I‐45 corridor. Smaller tonnage BNSF and UP rail lines between the Dallas metropolitan area and the Houston‐Galveston area lie partially within the corridor.
Rail operations paralleling I‐45 from Dallas to Houston are important not just because of the existing volumes of freight that they currently carry but because of the potential for both freight and passenger modal shift within the corridor and the implications on levels of service. Based on stakeholder comments, end to end freight movements by rail within the corridor take far longer than a similar move by truck, and if rail service levels decline further more rail freight could shift to highway. The most prominent rail element within the study corridor is UP’s "Texas Shuttle" intermodal service between the Port of Houston and a major intermodal yard in the South Dallas community of Wilmer, with access directly off of I‐45. UP operates the Texas Shuttle two days per week in each direction. Additionally, UP is currently making investments within the I‐45 corridor to enhance the services provided.
There are a number of major rail yards that support rail service within the corridor. For UP these include the Ft. Worth‐(Davidson), Houston‐(Englewood), Houston‐(Settegast), and Houston‐(Strang) yards. For BNSF, these include the Ft. Worth, Houston and Galveston yards.
There are also many rail intermodal facilities in the corridor. Intermodal terminals are locations where containerized cargo is transferred from rail to truck or truck to rail. Rail intermodal facilities within or near the corridor include BNSF Dallas‐Fort Worth (Alliance), and BNSF Houston, UP Houston, UP Dallas, and UP Wilmer facilities. In addition, there are numerous rail‐truck transload/transshipment terminals in the I‐45 corridor, particularly in the Dallas and Houston urban areas. Rail intermodal terminals and rail‐truck transshipment terminals in the I‐45 corridor are shown in Figure 3‐6.
February 2016 21 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐6: Intermodal Facilities
Source: NTAD from FRA data
February 2016 22 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report 3.2 Current I-45 Operating Conditions
With its anchors being two of the fastest growing metropolitan regions in the state, and with marine ports that are gaining a growing share of international import and export markets, I‐45 is facing extreme pressure in terms of congestion, reliability, and safety. Indicators of these challenges to efficient operating conditions of I‐45, including traffic volumes, volume of trucks, percentages of truck traffic, crashes and safety, level of service (LOS), highway speeds, and rail operations, are discussed in this section.
3.2.1 Traffic Volumes
Two‐way Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes in the I‐45 corridor for 2011 vary from below 35,000 up to 280,000 vehicles. Figure 3‐7 shows the highest daily traffic volumes occur between Galveston and Conroe with the highest overall volumes within Houston.
Average Daily Truck Volumes (2011) for the I‐45 corridor are shown in Figure 3‐8. Average daily truck volumes range from a low of less than 5,000 per day at the southern end of the corridor near Galveston to a high of 10,000 or more per day from Houston to Conroe. In general the pattern of truck volumes is very similar to that of AADT.
Truck percentages of average daily traffic are shown in Figure 3‐9. Truck percentage of traffic ranges from below 10% in the portion of the corridor between Galveston and Conroe to a high of 25% or more in the more rural portions of the corridor between Walker and Navarro Counties. The locations with the highest percentage of truck volumes tend to be those areas where the overall general traffic is lower (lower AADT).
February 2016 23 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐7: 2011 Average Daily Traffic
Source: TxDOT RHiNO database
February 2016 24 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐8: Average Daily Trucks
Source: TxDOT RHiNO database
February 2016 25 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐9: Truck Percentage of Average Daily Traffic
Source: TxDOT RHiNO database
February 2016 26 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report 3.2.2 Level of Service
Roadway level of service (LOS) is a widely used indicator of congestion and at a planning level can be derived for freeways by examining the volume of traffic on a road versus the capacity of the road (Volume to Capacity, or V/C, ratio) over a given time period. Table 3‐5 provides the relationship between V/C ratio, LOS and the level of congestion experienced. Figure 3‐10 offers a depiction of how LOS drops as density of traffic, measured by the v/c ratio, increases.
Table 3‐5: Level of Service (LOS) General Characteristics
Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) Level of Service (LOS) Daily Congestion Potential <0.70 A ‐ C Low 0.70 – 0.85 D Minor 0.85 – 1.00 E Moderate >1.00 F High
Figure 3‐10: Level‐of‐Service Descriptions
February 2016 27 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
The TFMP developed a highway tool to examine average daily LOS on the THFN using input from TxDOT’s Road‐Highway Inventory Network (RHiNO) database and the Statewide Analysis Model version 3 (SAMv3), TxDOT’s statewide travel demand model. The TFMP highway tool provides three levels of highway detail: corridors, sections, and segments. The highway segments are the smallest units on which forecasts were performed and vary in length from 3 to 60 miles with shorter segments located close to or in the urbanized areas. Longer segments tended to be in rural areas. These LOS forecasts are based on the forecasted V/C ratios of each segment. These V/C ratios, shown in Figure 3‐11, are provided at the segment level.
As can be seen in Figure 3‐11, according to the TFMP highway tool, in 2010 most of I‐45 outside of the Dallas and Houston‐Galveston metropolitan areas had a relatively high LOS with low daily congestion potential. Although the section of I‐45 from Conroe to Huntsville in Walker County, to the north of the Houston‐ Galveston metropolitan area, shows poor LOS and a high potential for daily congestion, likely due to the continued increasing urbanization of these areas. While this is a relatively simplistic level of analysis that does not account for incident related congestion or the localized impacts of incoming traffic at interchanges, it does provide a general indication of where I‐45 is most congested.
February 2016 28 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐11: Volume to Capacity Ratios
Source: TFMP highway and TxDOT’s Road‐Highway Inventory Network (RHiNO) database and Statewide Analysis Model version 3 (SAMv3)
February 2016 29 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report 3.2.3 Average Truck Speeds
Figure 3‐12 shows average daily truck speeds on I‐45. These speeds are derived from on‐board truck global positioning systems (GPS) collected from a number of trucking companies or their logistics providers and provided to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI).2 Since 2002, FHWA and ATRI have compiled truck speed data as part of the Freight Performance Measures (FPM) Initiative, a program that monitors a variety of measures related to the nation’s freight transportation system.
As shown in Figure 3‐12, in 2011 most of I‐45 had average daily truck speeds in excess of 52 mph except for the portion between Galveston and Houston. In general the closer to Galveston the lower the average daily truck speed with average daily speeds approaching Galveston of less than 40 mph.
3.2.4 Highway Freight Bottlenecks
The trucking industry, through ATRI, reports the nation’s most congested trucking bottlenecks. Data gathered from the on‐going nationwide analysis quantify and track the impact of traffic congestion on truck‐borne freight at 250 specific locations nationwide. The report highlights the top 100 highway freight congested locations nationwide, fifteen of which are in Texas and five are along the I‐45 study corridor. These five locations are listed in Table 3‐6 and shown in
2 ATRI is a 501 (c)(3) not‐for‐profit research arm of the American Trucking Associations.
February 2016 30 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐13 which also shows interchanges identified as stakeholder concerns.
Table 3‐6: I‐45 Freight Bottleneck Locations
National Texas Location Description Average Peak Non‐Peak Non‐Peak Congestion Congestion Speed Average Average /Peak Ratio Ranking Ranking (mph) Speed Speed 5 1 Houston: I‐45 at US 59 39 29 44 1.52 13 5 Houston: I‐10 at I‐45 46 36 50 1.38 Houston: I‐45 at I‐610 22 7 48 38 52 1.36 North Houston: I‐45 at I‐610 54 12 46 36 52 1.44 South
Houston: I‐45 at Sam 74 13 51 43 55 1.26 Houston Tollway North
Source: ATRI, Congestion Impact Analysis of Freight‐Significant Highway Locations – 2014
February 2016 31 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐12: 2011 Average Daily Truck Speeds
Source: FHWA/ATRI FPM data
February 2016 32 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐13: I‐45 Interchanges Identified as Freight Bottlenecks
February 2016 33 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report 3.2.5 Crash/Safety Experience
A review of crash statistics for the I‐45 corridor for the 3‐year period from 2010 to 2012 shows a total of 21,754 reported crashes with 2,001, or 9.2%, involving commercial motor vehicles (CMV). A breakdown of crash types recorded and the percent of crashes involving CMVs are shown in Figure 3‐14.
Figure 3‐14: I‐45 Corridor Crashes
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 ALL CMV ALL CMV ALL CMV 2010 2011 2012 Not injured 4,475 438 4,442 440 5,326 500 Possible injury 1,294 102 1,331 98 1,717 134 Non‐incapacitating 682 73 692 69 810 71 Incapacitating injury 178 19 155 19 180 17 Unknown 116 1 84 3 146 2 Fatal 504478293
Source: TxDOT Crash Records Information System (CRIS)
For both total and CMV crashes, the majority of crashes were non‐injury. For all crash types, the overall percentages for total crashes and CMV crashes follow the same trends, with the majority of crashes classified as not‐injured followed by possible injury, non‐incapacitating, incapacitating, unknown and fatal, with fatal crashes showing the lowest number of crashes. During the 2010‐2013 time period there were a total of 126 fatal crashes in the corridor with 15 involving CMVs. The majority of the fatal crash locations are in the heavily traveled portions of I‐45 in the Houston‐Galveston metropolitan area.
February 2016 34 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report 3.3 Rail Operating Conditions
Figure 3‐15 shows the 2010 annual rail freight tonnage by rail line and operator for the I‐45 freight corridor. As discussed, the major rail freight flows parallel the I‐45 corridor from Houston to the Dallas metropolitan area, particularly the BNSF and UP lines to the west of the corridor.
One metric of rail operating conditions is the weight restrictions placed on different tracks. For the main rail tracks serving the I‐45 corridor, most are rated for either 315,000 pound cars or 286,000 pound cars. UP tracks within the corridor are rated at 315,000 pounds, while BNSF tracks within the corridor are rated at 286,000 pounds. However, some of the port and terminal railways serving the Class I rail operators have a lower car load weight restriction which may create inefficiencies when exchanging cars. The rail weight restrictions are shown in Figure 3‐16.
February 2016 35 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐15: Corridor 2010 Rail Tonnage
Source: TRANSEARCH®
February 2016 36 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐16: Rail Weight Restrictions
Source: BNSF and UP
February 2016 37 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report 3.4 I-45 Corridor Current Performance
The goal in developing an inventory of physical and operating conditions of I‐45 (including parallel freight movement facilities in the study area), is to gain a sense of the freight flows and freight mobility performance in the corridor. It is critical to the growing Texas economy that timely, cost‐effective responses be developed to address the challenges that have been identified. To prepare this corridor freight performance for I‐45, the data summarized above was subjected to a two‐part assessment. The first part was a quantitative assessment comparing corridor characteristics to a set of performance benchmarks that reflect state transportation system standards. Second was a qualitative assessment that considers the impressions of the users of the corridor, the shippers, receivers, and motor carriers.
To measure freight mobility performance in the I‐45 corridor, the study team built on the freight goals and objectives established for the State by the TFMP. As was described earlier in Chapter 2, four TFMP goals were seen as having particular relevance for a corridor assessment; these goals have to do with safety, asset management, mobility, and economic competitiveness. For each goal, corridor level objectives have been defined, and a series of performance benchmarks were devised to be the basis for the assessment.
This section examines quantitative and qualitative performance measures relating to the I‐45 corridor and assessment of its performance. Detailed information on corridor performance evaluation can be found in Technical Memoranda 4.1 and 4.3, which are included in TxDOT’s project records of this study.
3.4.1 Quantitative Performance Measures
For the quantitative assessment, the I‐45 corridor between Galveston and I‐20 was divided into ten segments as shown in Figure 3‐17. The segments were defined to characterize the different physical and operational (primarily urban vs. rural) characteristics of I‐45, and to focus the analysis on segments that aggregate features under similar environments. Segments generally run between highway freight network roadways intersecting I‐45 that were identified in the TFMP. Rural segments are between 35 and 60 miles in length while urban and suburban segments are shorter, 3 to 15 miles in length. The segmentation allowed more detailed analysis of each area.
Identification and prioritization of improvement opportunities along the corridor were identified by applying the seven different performance metrics outlined in Table 3‐7 to each segment. Each of the segments was analyzed and given a score between 1 and 10 for each of the corridor goals: safety, asset management, mobility, and economic competitiveness, as well as a set of qualitative metrics related to conditions and performance with 1 correlating to ’very good,’ and 10 correlating to ‘very poor’, as shown in Table 3‐8. A “score” was assigned to each of these performance metrics for each of the ten I‐45 segments. Scores are standardized across segments for comparison purposes. Details of the performance analysis and scores can be found in Technical Memorandum 4.1, which is included in TxDOT’s project records of this study.
February 2016 38 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Figure 3‐17: I‐45 Corridor Segmentation
Table 3‐7: I‐45 Goals and Performance Measures and Threshold Metrics
February 2016 39 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
TFMP Goal I‐45 Corridor Performance Objectives I‐45 Corridor Performance Measures
Safety Improve I‐45 Truck Safety Accident rates on I‐45 for Trucks/CMVs Pavement condition Asset Management Maintain I‐45 in State of Good Repair Bridge condition Bridge Clearance Average Daily Level of Service Mobility and Reliability Improve truck travel speed Average daily truck speeds Economic Competitiveness Improve Truck Travel Reliability Truck Reliability Planning Time Index
Table 3‐8: Condition and Performance Scores Condition and Performance Score Assessment 9‐10 Very Poor 7‐8 Poor 5‐6 Fair 3‐4 Good 1‐2 Very Good
Table 3‐9: I‐45 Freight Corridor: Goal Area Segment Scores Asset Freight Economic Segment Segment Limits Safety Management Mobility Competiveness 10 I‐20 to FM 660 (Dallas) 8 8 4 4 9 FM 660 to SH 31 (Ferris) 2 6 4 4 8 SH 31 to US 79 (Corsicana) 2 6 2 4 US 79 to SH 75/FM 1791 7 2 6 2 4 (Buffalo) SH 75/FM 1791 to SH 242 6 2 5 8 4 (Huntsville) SH 242 to FM 1960 (between 5 2 4 10 8 Woodlands and Conroe) 4 FM 1960 to I‐610N (Houston) 2 5 10 10 3 I‐610N to I‐10 (Houston) 4 8 10 8 2 I‐10 to I‐610S (Houston) 4 10 10 10 1 I‐610S to SH 87 Galveston 6 6 7 10
February 2016 40 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Overall goal area scores were based on the ‘worst‐case’ scoring metric within a particular goal area. For example, for Safety, Segment 10 scored a two (2) or ‘very good’ for CMV crash rate, but scored an eight (8) or ‘poor’ for CMV crash fatality rate. The overall Safety score used for Segment 10 was an 8. Based on the ‘worst case’ scores, none of the segments rated ‘good’ or ‘very good’ for all goal areas. Looking at the full matrix of segments by goal areas, 18 out of 40 of the possible ratings were ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Segments 7, 8, and 9 did not receive any ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ ratings. Most of the ‘very poor’ ratings were related to Freight Mobility and Economic Competitiveness for Segments 1 through 5 between Galveston and Conroe.
3.4.2 Qualitative Performance Measures
The mobility performance of a freight transportation network is also affected by qualitative performance issues such as the identified highway freight bottlenecks on the I‐45 corridor, interchange operational issues, frontage road continuity, port access issues, and regulatory requirements.
Bottlenecks: As identified by ATRI, I‐45 has five of the top fifteen truck bottlenecks in the state (which are also among the top 75 bottlenecks in the nation), all in Houston: I‐45 at US 59, I‐45 at I‐10, I‐45 at I‐610 North, I‐45 at I‐610 South, and I‐45 at Sam Houston Tollway North. These bottlenecks are particularly important from a highway freight perspective because they make truck travel less efficient than it otherwise might be.
Port Access Issues: The Port of Houston is the largest container port in Texas and one of the largest in the nation. The ports general cargo terminals at the Turning Basin, and the Barbours Cut and Bayport container terminals together form one of the bottlenecks for freight along the I‐45 corridor. The Barbours Cut container terminal is the largest container terminal on the Gulf Coast and may have the most pronounced impact on corridor traffic of all the ports. The queue into the port extends to and past the frontage road traffic signals to the frontage roads and SH 146 exit ramps delaying traffic on SH 146 and other roadways.
Interchanges: Of the seven Primary Texas Freight Highway Network interchanges in the corridor, five are in Harris County within Houston, one is in Montgomery County in Conroe, and one is in Dallas County in Dallas. Of the five interchanges in the Houston area, four are among the top 100 ATRI bottlenecks nationally.
Frontage Roads: Most of I‐45 has frontage roads, typically either a one‐way frontage road on both sides or two‐way frontage roads on each side of the freeway. Approximately 6 percent of the I‐45 corridor is missing frontage roads. Among the longer sections of I‐45 without frontage roads are a 4.2 mile section near Streetman and a discontinuous 3.6 mile section near Corsicana.
February 2016 41 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Regulatory Requirements: While Texas statewide truck size and weight regulations are generally consistent with regulations in other parts of the US, the district or local permit requirements can create an impediment to oversize/overweight freight trucking. Counties in the I‐45 corridor have varying height restrictions; many counties require permits for trucks over 17 feet tall, and some counties require permits for lesser heights. For example Harris County detours all loads over 13 feet 6 inches or wider than 12 feet around downtown Houston on I‐610. Similarly, hazardous cargos are routed off of I‐45 to I‐610 in the Houston area.
The qualitative performance issues were also analyzed and given a score between 1 and 10, with 1 correlating to ’very good,’ and 10 correlating to ‘very poor.’ Scores are standardized across segments for comparison purposes. A summary of these scores by segment are included in Table 3‐10.
Table 3‐10: Qualitative Condition and Performance Scores Frontage Highway Interchange Port Regulatory Segment Segment Limits Road Bottlenecks Operations Access Issues Continuity
10 I‐20 to FM 660 (Dallas) 2 6 5 2 8
9 FM 660 to SH 31 (Ferris) 2 4 5 2 2
8 SH 31 to US 79 (Corsicana) 2 4 5 2 2
US 79 to SH 75/FM 1791 7 2 2 5 2 2 (Buffalo) SH 75/FM 1791 to SH 242 6 2 2 5 2 4 (Huntsville) SH 242 to FM 1960 (between 5 2 4 8 2 4 Woodlands and Conroe)
4 FM 1960 to I‐610N (Houston) 9 8 2 4 6
3 I‐610N to I‐10 (Houston) 9 8 8 6 10
2 I‐10 to I‐610S (Houston) 10 8 8 6 10
1 I‐610S to SH 87 Galveston 8 4 2 10 6
Condition and Performance Score Assessment 9‐10 Very Poor 7‐8 Poor 5‐6 Fair 3‐4 Good 1‐2 Very Good
February 2016 42
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
3.5 Freight Forecasts
Reflecting their position as population and economic centers of Texas, Dallas and Houston anchor an eleven‐county freight corridor that is home to 37 percent of the state’s population and 45 percent of its jobs. Over the next twenty‐five years, population and employment in the corridor are expected to grow 58 percent and 79 percent, respectively. With this population and employment growth, corresponding increases in shipping of freight into the region is expected for consumer consumption, manufacturing inputs, or international imports; and shipping out of the region as international exports or manufacturing output is also expected. The freight tonnage, freight values, and truck volume forecasts conducted for the I‐45 FCP support this conclusion.
3.5.1 Study Area Freight Flow
As shown in Table 3‐11, in 2010 over 950 million tons of freight moved into, out of, within, or through corridor counties, 59 percent of all the freight moving in Texas. That freight was valued at over $1.32 trillion based on TRANSEARCH® databases. Almost 25% of that freight moves through the counties, providing relatively little value to the regional economy, beyond expenditures by the carriers for fuel, food, or intermodal operations. By 2040, this tonnage will grow to over 2 billion tons, and 62 percent of the state total, as the region’s economy continues to grow.
Table 3‐11: Corridor Counties Total Freight
Year Truck Rail Water Air Pipeline Other Total (000s tons) 591,458 233,563 121,198 770 6,242 112 953,343 2010 (% Mode Share) 62% 24% 13% <1% 1% <1% ($ Billion) $905 $311 $99 $4 $1.6 ‐‐ $1,321 (000s tons) 1,377,952 464,905 174,104 2,676 22,553 393 2,042,583 2040 % Mode Share) 67% 23% 9% <1% 1% <1% ($ Billion) $3,100 $947 $161 $18 $5.2 ‐‐ $4,231
Source: TRANSEARCH® 2011
Of the freight originating or terminating in the region, no single commodity group dominates flow volumes, reflecting the diverse economy of the region. The three largest commodity groups in 2010, each with over 10 percent of total volumes, are:
Petroleum or coal products (17%); e.g., asphalt, paving or roofing materials, and liquefied gases Chemicals or allied products (14%); e.g., adhesives, agricultural chemicals, cosmetics, perfumes, and fertilizers Non‐metallic mineral (11%); e.g., gravel or sand, and fertilizer minerals
By 2040, some change in this top mix is expected, with petroleum or coal products being replaced in the top three by the commodity group of clay, concrete, glass, or stone. This change in the top commodity mix may also result in a shift from freight rail to truck based on how these commodities are currently
February 2016 43
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report transported. Table 3‐12 shows 2010 and 2040 projected tonnage in the I‐45 corridor by commodity for counties within the corridor.
Table 3‐12: Major Freight Commodities (I‐45 Corridor Counties)
2010 2040
Tons Percent Tons Percent Percent STCC23 Commodity (in 000s) of Total (in 000s) of Total Change 29 Petroleum or Coal Products 158,486 17% 163,461 8% 3% 28 Chemicals or Allied Products 135,513 14% 310,887 15% 129% 50 Secondary Traffic 120,832 13% 359,070 18% 197% 14 Non‐metallic Minerals 100,279 11% 209,071 10% 108% 20 Food or Kindred Products 74,989 8% 142,351 7% 90% 32 Clay, concrete, glass or Stone 68,936 7% 175,295 9% 154% 01 Farm Products 48,648 5% 99,090 5% 104% 11 Coal 43,091 5% 22,150 1% (49%) 13 Crude Petroleum or Natural Gas 34,951 4% 65,117 3% 86% 40 Waste or Scrap Materials 23,484 2% 69,862 3% 197% Other 144,134 15% 426,229 21% 196% Total 953,343 100% 2,042,583 100% 114%
Source: TRANSEARCH® 2011
A notable observation of the commodity data analyzed for the I‐45 FCP is that freight moved by truck and rail dominates freight flows in the region, carrying 67 percent and 23 percent of all freight, respectively, in 20104. By 2040, truck freight is expected to increase by 133 percent while rail freight is projected to nearly double, growing by a projected 99 percent. Within the rapidly growing I‐45 corridor region, the increasing demand for efficient freight movement by truck and rail, on top of overall increasing travel demand, will place significant burdens on the urban networks in Houston and Dallas, on the critical intermodal facilities such as the ports, and on the intercity corridors between them.
3 Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC) – Developed and maintained by the American Association of Railroads (AAR) ‐ a STCC code is a seven digit numeric code representing 38 commodity groupings. Assignment of an STCC Code is associated with a commodity description developed to conform with exact descriptions in freight transportation classifications of rail and motor carriers. STCC codes are used in waybills. In TRANSEARCH only four digit STCC codes are available. 4 TRANSEARCH data does not include pipeline movements. It is noted that pipelines likely carry sizeable movements within this corridor which are not accounted for in this data.
February 2016 44
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
3.5.2 I-45 Corridor Freight Flow
While total freight moving in and out of the I‐45 corridor counties is large and growing dramatically, of more importance for the I‐45 FCP is freight moving up and down the actual corridor on I‐45 and parallel rail lines, freight from the Houston‐Galveston region and the region’s ports to the Dallas region and to markets in the broad geographic region of the country north of Dallas. These geographic regions considered are shown in Figure 3‐18.
Figure 3‐18: Geographic Zone for Corridor Freight Analysis
Freight generated in 2010 within the eleven I‐45 counties plus the expanded Houston‐Galveston and Dallas metropolitan regions and moving along the I‐45 corridor by highway or rail is summarized in Table 3‐13. These estimates utilize the freight network assignment features of the TRANSEARCH® model. In 2010, over 154.47 million tons of freight, valued at over $131.26 billion, originated or terminated in one of the I‐45 counties, with the other end of the haul either within the region counties or within the freight travel shed north of the Dallas region. As shown in Table 3‐14, by 2040, it is forecasted that I‐45
February 2016 45
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report corridor freight flow will increase to over 280.05 million tons of freight, an 81 percent increase from 2010, valued at over $397.23 billion, a 200 percent increase.
As shown in both Table 3‐13 and Table 3‐14, the greatest tonnage of corridor freight that is likely to move over I‐45 or parallel rail lines moves between Dallas and Houston, Houston and out‐of‐state, and Freestone County and out‐of‐state.
In 2010, 20 percent of the corridor’s freight moved between the Houston and Dallas regions (30.34 million tons); this will increase to 32 percent by 2040 (90.13 million tons). If tonnage shown in the tables that is intra‐regional, including 81 million tons that stay within the Houston‐ Galveston MSA, is excluded, then freight moving between the Dallas and Houston‐Galveston MSAs accounts for 28 percent in 2010, increasing its share to 46 percent in 2040. Also in 2010, over one‐third (35 percent) of corridor freight moved between the Houston‐ Galveston region and the Out of State region north of Dallas (53.42 million tons); this percentage will decrease to 30 percent by 2040, even though the tonnage forecast increases to 85.31 million tons. If freight moving wholly within the Dallas region (intra‐regional flows) are excluded, freight between Houston‐Galveston and out‐of‐state freight north of the Dallas MSA accounts for 28 percent of corridor flow in 2010, increasing to 43 percent by 2040. Ten percent of the corridor’s freight flows between Freestone County and north of Dallas (15.89 million tons), but by 2040, tonnage and the share of tonnage is projected to drop significantly, to 4.17 million tons and 1.5 percent.
The modal split between truck and rail for freight moving in the I‐45 corridor was relatively even in 2010, with 53 percent of the tonnage moved by truck. By 2040, it is projected that trucks will carry 68 percent of the I‐45 corridor’s freight by tonnage and 87 percent by value. However, when considering the value of freight hauled, truck freight dominates, at 78 percent of total corridor freight in 2010, with forecasts suggesting it will increase to 87 percent by 2040.
February 2016 46
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 3‐13: I‐45 Corridor Commodity Flow: I‐45 plus Parallel Rail Lines, 2010
Tonnage (in 000s) Destination Houston Out of Origin Dallas MSA MSA State Leon Madison Navarro Freestone Walker Dallas MSA 1,497 17,399 124 258 23 181 69 92 Houston MSA 12,941 45,123 8,205 252 110 189 87 433 Out of State 2,300 45,213 56 129 9 366 15,774 41 Leon 166 120 111 0 0 0 3 0 Madison 16 79 1 96 0 0 63 11 Navarro 1,222 410 48 2 4 0 58 6 Freestone 99 56 112 4 1 5 0 3 Walker 188 657 6 3 1 34 19 0 Total 154,474 Value (in $000s) Destination Houston Out of Origin Dallas MSA MSA State Leon Madison Navarro Freestone Walker Dallas MSA 172,009 33,473,869 92,368 128,002 26,440 87,412 26,377 134,435 Houston MSA 26,556,578 28,912,913 16,148,043 182,524 20,272 245,618 109,008 152,066 Out of State 710,486 21,049,947 20,013 89,929 14,196 160,131 606,707 60,086 Leon 78,463 150,129 154,810 0 13 34 38 62 Madison 31,009 3,686 1,206 741 0 13 484 88 Navarro 222,974 506,296 106,081 328 192 0 833 1,267 Freestone 22,259 130,930 7,519 496 104 210 0 370 Walker 164,844 398,090 51,030 2,204 117 30,416 17,524 0 Total 131,264,291 Truck Rail % Truck % Rail Tonnage 82,599 71,875 53% 47% Value 102,783,070 28,481,221 78% 22% Source: TRANSEARCH®, 2011
February 2016 47
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 3‐14: I‐45 Corridor Commodity Flow: I‐45 plus Parallel Rail Lines, 2040
Tonnage (in 000s) Destination Houston Out of Origin Dallas MSA MSA State Leon Madison Navarro Freestone Walker Dallas MSA 3,160 56,889 319 1,041 37 278 154 201 Houston MSA 33,242 80,976 15,134 620 141 302 137 942 Out of State 4,502 70,172 80 421 13 647 4,059 56 Leon 395 407 183 0 0 1 2 2 Madison 22 26 1 132 0 1 27 1 Navarro 1,985 809 106 3 9 0 55 11 Freestone 127 172 112 5 0 0 0 4 Walker 323 1,537 4 4 2 49 12 0 Total 280,051 Value (in $000s) Destination Houston Out of Origin Dallas MSA MSA State Leon Madison Navarro Freestone Walker Dallas MSA 428,018 148,022,821 200,162 480,143 62,398 212,123 60,256 356,994 Houston MSA 96,759,425 47,778,782 41,105,406 406,888 24,245 530,691 232,687 311,073 Out of State 2,309,535 52,384,214 31,922 213,892 31,673 266,938 240,749 111,992 Leon 160,185 496,974 265,029 0 29 75 111 295 Madison 49,386 9,068 3,694 1,018 0 10 209 11 Navarro 411,924 899,177 236,095 613 462 0 1,035 2,258 Freestone 32,579 491,666 15,012 1,032 134 48 0 617 Walker 316,513 1,188,866 22,204 3,281 509 43,793 10,509 0 Total 397,227,448 Truck Rail % Truck % Rail Tonnage 190,094 89,957 68% 32% Value 346,893,523 50,333,925 87% 13% Source: TRANSEARCH®, 2011
February 2016 48
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Analysis of freight moving along the I‐45 corridor reveals the dominance of truck‐borne freight for movements within the corridor and the quantity and value of freight moving along the corridor to and from states to the north. Significant findings from the corridor‐level forecasts include:
From 2010 to 2040, freight tonnage moving by highway or rail in the I‐45 corridor is forecast to increase by over 80 percent, placing significant strain on the capacity of existing highway and rail systems; this is particularly the case for highways, as freight demand will be on top of dramatically increasing commuter and general personal mobility demands.
In 2010, the major freight origin/destination pairings were between the Houston MSA and states north of Texas; over 53 million tons. Thirty‐five percent of corridor’s total freight tonnage moved from Houston to other domestic markets with significant shares by both truck and rail. By 2040, the tonnage from Houston to out of state markets north of Dallas is expected to increase by 60 percent, holding relatively steady in terms of market share at 30 percent. This increase in demand will place the importance of efficiently traversing the corridor and the Dallas region at a premium and may open opportunities for enhanced intermodal traffic.
Of total corridor freight tonnage in 2010, 20 percent moved between the Dallas and Houston MSAs; 96 percent of that tonnage, or 29.1 million tons, moved by truck. By 2040, total tonnage between these two centers is projected to triple to over 90 million tons, 32 percent of the total corridor tonnage; trucks moving between Houston and Dallas are projected to carry 97 percent of that freight. The relatively short distance (250 miles) between Dallas and Houston makes shifting significant amounts of that tonnage from truck to rail a substantial challenge, since rail is not usually cost competitive for trips less than 500 miles.
Between Dallas and Houston, only Freestone County is generating significant freight tonnage (generated by a power plant, quarry, and oil wells in the area), and this freight is largely moved by rail; the primary shipper is the Big Brown power plant. The implication of the lesser amounts of freight being generated internal to the corridor is that outside of the two metropolitan areas, the emphasis on freight system improvements should be on through‐movements rather than local access. I‐45 Truck Volumes: With the large volume of freight moving a relatively short distance between the Houston and Dallas MSAs, a significant modal shift is likely dependent on significant investments in new intermodal or rail facilities. As a result, understanding expected truck volumes along I‐45 within the context of total traffic volumes, available facility capacity and resulting operations, and programmed or planned investments is a critical element of ongoing needs assessments. Using forecasting tools developed for the TFMP, I‐45 truck forecasts were refined and have resulted in the following findings:
The percentage of heavy trucks is highest in the lower volume rural areas, and is lowest in high volume, urban areas. Between Ferris (exit 264) and Huntsville (exit 118), trucks in 2010 were 19.7 percent to 27.7 percent of total traffic; while in the Houston metro area, heavy trucks were between 3.3 and 7.4 percent.
February 2016 49
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Between 2010 and 2040, heavy truck volumes are expected to grow more rapidly than overall traffic in nearly every part of the corridor. Only in the northern corridor segment of South Dallas, and in south‐central Houston is overall traffic growth expected to exceed truck growth, likely reflecting continuing overall growth pressures.
By 2040, heavy trucks are projected to comprise a significantly larger portion of the total traffic mix across nearly all segments. Based on the data derived from TFMP forecast tools, for the 114 miles between Corsicana and Huntsville, 40 – 43 percent of traffic will be heavy trucks. Those very heavy mid‐corridor truck volumes may offer opportunities for TxDOT to consider aggressive strategies to reduce the impacts of trucks on general traffic and also to optimize freight flow in a way that recognizes the critical supply chains are driving forces in the economy of the I‐45 corridor.
Principal Supply Chains The I‐45 freight corridor supports many supply chains which are significant to the statewide economy. Five supply chains developed for the TFMP were analyzed for their utilization of the I‐45 freight corridor: automotive, beef, cotton, electronics, and gasoline. Of these commodities, I‐45 carries and is projected to carry the most total tonnage of gasoline. The oil and gas industry constitutes over one‐third of Texas’ economy, so these movements are critical. Moderate overall increases are forecast for gasoline movements along the I‐45 freight corridor, with truck tonnage increasing 28 percent and rail tonnage decreasing by 18 percent. Electronics goods are forecast to have the greatest tonnage increase of nearly ten‐fold (891 percent), all carried by truck. Automotive goods tonnage in the corridor is forecast to increase 240 percent overall (262 percent truck and 193 percent rail). 3.6 Planned Improvements
I‐45 improvements intended to address identified corridor freight needs should reflect and build upon projects that have already been designated in TxDOT’s planning and project development processes, to ensure consistency and avoid functional conflicts. To identify current project development efforts, all Planned and Programmed (P&P) projects along I‐45 between its southern terminus in Galveston and I‐20 in Dallas were extracted from TxDOT Design and Construction Information System (DCIS) in September 2015. These projects are listed in the following categories:
1. Proposition 1 – Projects funded through a November 4, 2014 ballot measure known as Proposition 1 (Prop 1), which authorized a constitutional amendment for transportation funding. Under the amendment, a portion of oil and gas tax revenues that typically go into the Economic Stabilization Fund will be deposited to the State Highway Fund. The amendment did not create any new taxes or fees. All Prop 1 projects are expected to be let by the end of 2015.
2. Unified Transportation Program – Projects within TxDOT’s Unified Transportation Program (UTP), which is a listing of projects that are planned to be constructed and/or developed within the first ten years of the Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan. Project development includes activities such as preliminary engineering work, environmental analysis, right‐of‐way
February 2016 50
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
acquisition, and design. The UTP is neither a budget nor a guarantee that projects will or can be built. However, it is a critical tool in guiding transportation project development within the long‐ term planning context. In addition, it serves as a communication tool for stakeholders and the public in understanding the project development commitments TxDOT is making. 3. Feasibility Projects/Studies – Feasibility studies are conducted to determine whether a potential improvement will address a transportation need, will not have negative impacts in the project area and is consistent with TxDOT goals. Potential improvements are evaluated to determine whether they are needed and a cost effective means of addressing an identified transportation need. 4. Future Candidates – Projects which are in the early stages of development and are beyond the timeframe of the UTP. For the I‐45 FCP, it is assumed that the Prop 1 and UTP projects will be constructed and would address applicable identified needs. The Feasibility/Future projects are not assumed to be constructed and are considered as part of the potential improvement scenarios because of their broader consideration by TxDOT and regional planning agencies to address broader transportation needs.
Identified needs along with P&P projects are discussed by corridor segment below. Table 3‐15 is a legend for the Interpretative Diagrammatic included as Table 3‐16, which depicts the ratings of the segments in each of the four goal areas as well as the programmed projects identified within the corridor segments that address these needs and the planned projects to be considered. The highest (or worst) overall metric ranking per goal area is the basis for the goal rating shown in Table 3‐16 For example, regarding safety, if a segment ranked 2 for CMV crashes and 5 for CMV fatalities, the segment ranking of 5 is shown.
Table 3‐15: Interpretative Diagrammatic Legend
Planned Programmed TxDOT Mile Control Segment Project Crossing Description Segment County Area Type Project District Marker Section Rating (Feasibility or Facility (Prop 1 or UTP) Future) CITY/ 10 Dallas Ellis # (Urban) Very Poor Primary TOWN
RURAL # (Rural) Poor Secondary 02 ‐ Fair
0092 Good Description Description Very
Good
As Table 3‐16 is oriented to mimic the general north‐south orientation of the I‐45 corridor, the segments will be discussed in sequence from Segment 10 to Segment 1 so they align with the table. The segments were shown previously on Figure 3‐17.
February 2016 51
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Segment 10 extends from I‐20 south of Dallas to FM 660 in Ferris. This segment scored good for Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness and poor for of Safety due to CMV fatal crashes and Asset Management due to pavement conditions and bridge vertical clearance over the Primary Freight Network.
There are no planned or programmed projects to address the Safety and Asset Management needs within this segment.
Segment 9 extends from FM 660 in Ferris to SH 31 in Corsicana to and scored very good for Safety, good for Freight Mobility and Connectivity, and Economic Competitiveness, and fair for Asset Management due to pavement conditions.
The UTP includes widening along the southern portion of Segment 9 which will improve the fair pavement conditions within this segment.
Segment 8 extends from SH 131 in Corsicana to US 79 near Buffalo and scored very good in terms of Safety, good for Freight Mobility and Connectivity, and Economic Competitiveness, and poor in terms of Asset Management due to pavement conditions and bridge vertical clearances over the Primary Freight Network.
Prop 1 projects in Segment 8 include a widening project between Richland and Streetman. The widening should address the pavement condition in that area. Segment 8 also has vertical clearance needs for bridges crossing I‐45. For all future improvements on or crossing the Highway Freight Network, raising bridges to the desirable minimum vertical clearance should be considered. However, the timing of Prop 1 projects indicates that improving those vertical clearances along this portion of Segment 8 is not included, so the need would remain even after project completion.
The UTP includes several projects on Segment 8 for widening and seal coat projects which will improve the pavement conditions in those areas. The widening projects should incorporate necessary rehabilitation, reconstruction, or raising of the bridges to improve the condition or meet the minimum desirable vertical clearance standards for the Highway Freight Network. For the purposes the I‐45 FCP, it is assumed that the bridges in those locations will be improved accordingly.
Segment 7 extends from US 79 near Buffalo to SH 75 in Huntsville and scored very good for Safety, good for Freight Mobility and Connectivity, and Economic Competitiveness, and poor for Asset Management due to vertical clearances over the Primary Freight Network.
There are no Prop 1 or UTP projects within the limits of Segment 7 to address these vertical clearance issues. There are numerous Feasibility/Future Candidate roadway widening projects which should incorporate the raising of the identified bridge vertical clearance issues while addressing other issues that are not freight‐specific.
Segment 6 extends from SH 75 in Huntsville to SH 242 south of Conroe and scored very good for Safety, good for Economic Competitiveness, poor for Freight Mobility and Connectivity due to mainline LOS,
February 2016 52
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report and very poor for Asset Management due to bridge vertical clearance over the Secondary Freight Network.
There are no Prop 1 or UTP projects within the limits of Segment 6 to address these vertical clearance issues. There are Feasibility/Future Candidate roadway widening projects which should incorporate the raising of the identified bridge vertical clearance issues while addressing other issues that are not freight‐specific.
The UTP includes a project for the addition of managed lanes along the southern part of Segment 6 as well as a project to construct a Park and Ride facility within the limits of Segment 6 which would address mainline LOS.
Several Future/Feasibility projects are planned to widen the mainline and/or add Managed Lanes within Segment 6. As these projects are beyond the UTP, these improvements will be evaluated as part of the I‐ 45 FCP improvement scenarios as applicable along those segments.
Segment 5 extends from FM 1960 in the northern suburbs of Houston to SH 242 south of Conroe and scored very good in terms of Safety, good for Asset Management, poor for Economic Competitiveness due to travel time reliability, and very poor for Freight Mobility and Connectivity due to mainline LOS and mainline average truck speed.
The UTP includes projects for the addition of managed lanes through Segment 5 which would address mainline LOS, and mainline average truck speed, and in turn would improve travel time reliability.
Several Future/Feasibility projects are planned to modify ramp configurations and add auxiliary lanes within Segment 5. As these projects are beyond the UTP, these improvements will be evaluated as part of the I‐45 FCP improvement scenarios as applicable along those segments.
Segment 4 extends from SH 242 south of Conroe to I‐610 north of downtown Houston and scored very good for Safety; fair for Asset Management due to bridge vertical clearance over the Primary Freight Network; and very poor for Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competiveness due to mainline LOS, mainline average truck speed, and travel time.
The UTP includes several projects to reconstruct frontage roads as well as the addition of managed lanes in Segment 4 which would address the mainline LOS, mainline average truck speed, and travel time.
There are numerous Feasibility/Future Candidate projects which are mostly roadway widening, typically with the addition of HOV, managed lanes, or express lanes along portions of Segment 4, which should address the LOS, speed, and travel time needs as well as bridge vertical clearance issues. As these projects are beyond the UTP, these improvements will be evaluated as part of the I‐45 FCP improvement scenarios as applicable.
Segment 3 is the shortest evaluation segment, extending from I‐610 north of downtown Houston to I‐10 in central Houston. The segment scored good for Safety; poor for Asset Management due to pavement condition, bridge condition, and bridge vertical clearance over the Primary Freight Network; poor for
February 2016 53
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Economic Competitiveness due to travel time reliability; and very poor for Freight Mobility and Connectivity due to mainline LOS and mainline average truck speed.
The UTP includes several projects to reconstruct frontage roads as well as the addition of managed lanes in Segment 3 which would address the mainline LOS, mainline average truck speed, and travel time.
There are numerous Feasibility/Future Candidate projects along Segment 3 which are mostly roadway widening, typically with the addition of HOV, managed lanes, or express lanes. These would address the LOS, speed, and travel time needs as well as pavement and bridge condition and vertical clearance issues. As these projects are beyond the UTP, these improvements will be evaluated as part of the I‐45 FCP improvement scenarios as applicable.
Segment 2 extends from I‐10 in central Houston to I‐610 south of downtown Houston and scored good for Safety, very poor for Asset Management due to pavement conditions and bridge vertical clearances over the Primary and Secondary Freight Network, very poor for Freight Mobility and Connectivity due to mainline LOS and truck speeds, and very poor for Economic Competiveness due to travel time reliability.
The UTP includes several projects in Segment 2 to reconstruct frontage roads, interchange reconfiguration, and the addition of managed lanes which would address the mainline LOS, mainline average truck speed, and travel time.
There are numerous Feasibility/Future Candidate projects along Segment 2, which are mostly roadway widening, typically with the addition of HOV, managed lanes, or express lanes, which should address the LOS, speed, and travel time needs as well as asset management issues. As these projects are beyond the UTP, these improvements will be evaluated as part of the I‐45 FCP improvement scenarios as applicable.
Segment 1 extends from I‐610S in south Houston to SH 87 in Galveston and scored fair for Safety due to CMV fatalities, fair for Asset Management due to pavement conditions and bridge vertical clearances over the Primary Freight Network, poor for Freight Mobility and Connectivity due to mainline LOS and truck speeds, and very poor for Economic Competitiveness due to travel time reliability.
Prop 1 projects for pavement overlays will address some of the pavement condition issues within Segment 1. UTP projects within Segment 1 include additional pavement overlays, installation of high mast lighting, and the construction or reconstruction frontage roads which would address the pavement condition, mainline LOS, mainline average truck speed, and travel time.
There are numerous Feasibility/Future Candidate projects for roadway widening along Segment 1, which should address the LOS, speed, and travel time needs as well as the pavement condition and bridge vertical clearance issues. As these projects are beyond the UTP, these improvements will be evaluated as part of the I‐45 FCP improvement scenarios as applicable.
February 2016 54
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 3‐16: Needs, Planned and Programmed Projects
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan
276 IH 20 HUTCHINS 274
WILMER 272 10 Dallas
0092-02 270 RURAL 268
FERRIS
264 0092-03 RURAL 262
Dallas Dallas 260 PALMER
258 RURAL
0092-04 GARRETT 256 9 Ellis 254
ENNIS 252 SH 34
250 BI 45
248 US 287 0092-05 ALMA 246 RURAL
February 2016 55
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan
244
242
RICE 240
9 238
0092-06
236 Widen Mainlines BI 45 RURAL 234
232 SH 31 CORSICANA 230 BU 287 Dallas Dallas Navarro 228 BI 45
226
ANGUS 0093-01 224 Widen mainlines
8 222 RURAL 220 RICHLAND
218
RURAL 216 0116-01
Widen mainlines STREETMAN 214
February 2016 56
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan
STREETMAN 212
210
208
206 RURAL 0675-01 Seal coat 204
202
Rehabilitate roadway, Widen Mainlines 200
FAIRFIELD 198 8 Bryan
Freestone 196
194
192
190
RURAL 0675-02 188 Seal coat
Widen Mainlines 186
184
182
February 2016 57
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan RURAL 8 180 BUFFALO 178 US 79
176
174
RURAL 176 0675-03 170
Overlay, Widen mainlines 168
166 Leon Bryan 7 CENTERVILLE 164
162
RURAL 160
158 0675-04 LEONA Widen mainlines 156
RURAL 154
February 2016 58
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan
152
150
RURAL 148
146
144
0675-05
Madison US 190/ MADISONVILLE 142 SH 21
Widen mainlines 140
138
7 136
Bryan 134
132 RURAL 130
128
126
Walker Walker 124 0675-06
Widen mainlines Widen mainlines 122
120
HUNTSVILLE 118 FM 2821 6 SH 30/ US 190
February 2016 59
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan
116
114 SH 19 HUNTSVILLE 112
110
108 Walker Walker 0675-07
Widen mainlines Widen mainlines RURAL 106
104 NEW WAVERLY 102
6 100 RURAL
98
96 WILLIS
94 RURAL
92 0675-08 Houston Montgomery 90 FM 3083 SL 336
Construct Park and Ride CONROE 88 SH 105
86 Widen mainlines, Construct N bound Fr. Road Widen mainlines, Construct N bound Fr. Road
SL 336/ 84 SH 75
February 2016 60
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan
82 6 RURAL
80 RURAL SHENANDOAH 78
0110-04 Montgomery OAK RIDGE NORTH 76
Create 2 Managed Lanes Create 2 Managed Lanes Ramp Mod, Add Aux Lanes Ramp Mod, Add Aux Lanes 74 5 RURAL 72 SS 548
70
Houston 68
0110-05 66 FM 1960
Create 2 Managed Lanes Create 2 Managed Lanes Ramp Mod, Add Aux Lanes Ramp Mod, Add Aux Lanes
Harris 64 HOUSTON
62 4
60 SL 8
0110-06 58 SH 249 4 Managed Lanes 4 Managed Lanes SS 261
February 2016 61
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan
56
4 54
52 IH 610 3 50
Reconfigure Interchanges Reconfigure Interchanges Reconfigure Interchanges 48 IH 10
46 US 59
2 44 US 90A 42
HOUSTON press Lanes, or HOV lanes, press Lanes, or HOV lanes, press Lanes, or HOV lanes, IH 610/
nt, -Reconstruct Frontage Roads nt, -Reconstruct Frontage Roads SH 35 IH 610/ Harris 0500-03 Houston 40 SH 35
38 High Mast Illumination SH 3
36 Widen Mainlines and Frontage Roads
34 1 32 Transportation System Manageme Transportation System Manageme SL 8
30 FM 2351
28
WEBSTER 26 FM 528 Widen Mainlines and Frontage Roads, Add Managed Lanes, Ex Widen Mainlines and Frontage Roads, Add Managed Lanes, Ex Widen Mainlines and Frontage Roads, Add Managed Lanes, Ex
February 2016 62
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Asset Freight Economic Safety Management Mobility/Connectivity Competitiveness Crossing TxDOT Area Mile Control Projects Projects Projects Projects Segment County Rating Rating Rating Rating Facilities District Type Marker Section Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan Prog Plan
24 FM 518 SH 96 LEAGUE CITY 22 FM 646 DICKINSON 20
TEXAS CITY 18
16 FM 1764
FM 1764/ 0500-04 Overlay FM 2004
14 FM 1765 1 LA MARQUE 12 Houston Galveston Widen Mainlines and Frontage Roads Widen Mainlines and Frontage Roads
10
Widen Mainlines and Frontage Roads, Build Direct Conn Widen Mainlines and Frontage Roads, Build Direct Conn 8
HITCHCOCK SH 6/ SH
6 146 TIKI ISLAND 4
GALVESTON 0500-01 2 SH 275 Widen ML and FR FR and Widen ML FR and Widen ML FR and Widen ML FR and Widen ML SS 342/ SH 87
February 2016 63
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
4. Identification and Evaluation of I-45 Freight Improvement Alternatives
4.1 Evaluation Framework
Improvement scenarios, with customized solutions for each corridor segment, were developed in response to the specific freight needs identified (Chapter 3), by applying performance data in each segment and by reviewing currently planned and programmed improvements to I‐45 which may address these needs. To begin the scenario evaluation process, a broad range of potential improvement actions or projects was developed using a three‐tiered temporal improvement framework. The three tiers of solutions align with the typical timeframe required from project identification through project implementation. These tiers were:
Quick Start Projects/Strategies: relatively quick and low cost projects addressing immediate, “hot spot” issues (<$5 million; 1‐4 years) Multimodal Network Enhancements: intended to capture what can be thought of as more traditional highway capital investments (up to $200 million; 5‐10 years, aligned with the UTP) Horizon Strategies: intended to address non‐traditional projects and/or policies that due to their nature are very high cost and may require long time horizons due to regulatory hurdles, the state of technology, public acceptance, or private sector buy‐in (10 or more years, beyond the scope of the UTP; or requires a legislative or law change)
Application of Candidate Strategies I‐45 short and long‐term freight needs were considered on a segment‐by‐segment basis, with comparison to TxDOT’s planned and programmed improvements along I‐45, to establish a set of candidate improvement strategies. Assigning strategies to each segment allowed several programmatic scenarios to be examined and evaluated for their effectiveness in addressing the four freight goal areas of the needs assessment.
4.1.1 Case Study Evaluation Approach
Potential improvement scenarios for the I‐45 freight corridor were evaluated using a case study approach. Benefits of the improvement scenarios were identified from materials derived through historical outcomes of similar implementations, literature review, and other available sources.
For each of the three timeframes of the aforementioned temporal improvement framework, case studies were identified and reviewed to determine benefits and/or negative outcomes relative to the four identified freight performance goals:
Safety Asset Management Mobility / Connectivity Economic Competitiveness
February 2016 64
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Examples of the resources that were applied in the case study evaluation approach were responsive to the actual improvement scenarios that are identified and may include but are not limited to:
. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Operations Office – Freight Management and Operations – ITS Joint Program Office . Research institutions including but not limited to – Transportation Research Board (TRB) – Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) – Center for Transportation Research (CTR) . TxDOT and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case Studies . AASHTO reports . National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) . TTI Freight Shuttle Feasibility Research . Additional project‐specific feasibility studies as applicable
4.1.2 Strategy Scoring
Each potential strategy was evaluated and assigned an effectiveness rating of highly effective, somewhat effective, or not effective for each of the four goal areas based on the case study information. A score was then assigned for each goal area, by segment, based on the effectiveness of the strategy to address the need, and the performance and condition rating of the segment for that goal area (Chapter 3) as shown in Table 4‐1. The available scores ranged between 0 and 10. If the strategy was determined to be not effective in addressing the need, it was given a score of 0 regardless of the assessment of need. The maximum score available was a 10, if the segment was assessed as very poor and the strategy was determined to be highly effective.
February 2016 65
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 4‐1: Improvement Scores by Goal Area Ratings and Improvement Effectiveness Highly Somewhat Not Segment Effective Effective Effective Rating
Very poor 10 4 0 Poor 830 Fair 620
No need 410
The potential improvement scenarios were applied along segments of the corridor where the needs which they addressed were identified, unless it was determined that the strategy was applicable to the entire length of the corridor. Most potential improvements benefit multiple goal areas, and the applicable scores were given for all goal areas addressed within each segment.
Cost Estimating Techniques The feasibility of any potential improvement depends upon the comparison of the benefits received to the implementation costs. Detailed benefit and implementation costs were not developed for the potential improvement scenarios. Relative costs were developed based on review of applicable case studies. These relative costs and the degree of reliability will vary by local conditions and circumstances. As feasible project improvements are further developed, more detailed cost analyses will need to be calculated.
Quick Start Projects/Strategies Potential Quick Start projects and strategies are by nature low capital cost improvements. Many of the opportunities involve additional man‐hours for targeted enforcement initiatives, or additional coordination between TxDOT and private or quasi‐public freight entities such as ports, shippers/receivers, and trucking companies. Assumptions regarding necessary timeframes and man‐ hour costs were outlined to develop implementation estimates for these projects and strategies.
Multimodal Network Enhancements Multimodal network enhancements are the traditional infrastructure improvements such as added capacity and interchange reconfiguration most common to TxDOT’s work program. Costs for some potential improvements may currently be included in TxDOT’s UTP if a project is under development. Planning‐level costs for additional improvements to address identified needs were estimated based on average per mile costs of similar currently planned improvements.
February 2016 66
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Horizon Projects/Policies Estimated costs for Horizon projects and policies were based on historical information for similar implementations or available literature for improvement scenarios. It must be noted that due to the progressive nature of these projects some did not have sufficient historical cost data from which to extract estimates. 4.2 Potential Improvement Strategies
Potential improvement strategies were developed and presented to corridor key stakeholders in October 2015. Feedback received from key stakeholders and the I‐45 FCP Steering Committee was incorporated into the current list. It should be noted that these improvement strategies would be developed into specific projects which are consistent with the project eligibility guidance in the federal Fixing America’s Surface Transport Act (FAST) Act.
4.2.1 Quick Start Projects/Strategies
Experience has shown that it is important to match private sector expectations for action following the completion of a freight‐focused planning study. Research by the U.S. Department of Transportation and national transportation organizations has also documented benefits that can be derived from operational improvements at a relatively low cost and in a short timeframe. For the purposes of the improvement framework, “relatively low cost” is loosely interpreted to mean a project of $5 million or less, and short “timeframe” as less than 4 years to implement
Table 4‐3 provides the Quick Start projects/strategies that were evaluated for application in the I‐45 FCP, matched against goal areas for improvement in the corridor. Brief strategy descriptions are included as Appendix A.
February 2016 67
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 4‐3: Improvement Scenarios Framework – Candidate Quick Start Projects/Strategies Quick Start Projects/Strategies Goal Evaluation Metrics Low Cost (less than $5M) Short Timeframe (1‐4 years) ‒ Speed enforcement Non‐fatal Commercial ‒ Incident management programs Vehicle Crashes (crashes/100 ‒ Public education /safety campaigns 1 MVMT ) ‒ Restricted truck lanes within existing capacity Safety ‒ Truck parking and appointment information /reservation systems Fatal Commercial Vehicle ‒ Bright striping of low bridges Crashes ‒ Detailed corridor safety analysis ‒ ITS collision avoidance Pavement Condition ‒ Weigh‐in‐motion monitoring and enforcement Asset Bridge Clearance Not Applicable Management Bridge Condition ‒ Weigh‐in‐motion monitoring and enforcement ‒ Wayfinding signage including bypass signage for Mainline Level of Service trucks ‒ Variable speed limits Freight Mobility ‒ Changes in port operations/off‐peak hours / Connectivity Mainline Average Truck ‒ CVO traveler info Speed ‒ Truckload consolidation in urban areas ‒ Off‐peak demand strategies ‒ Wayfinding signage including bypass signage for trucks ‒ Changes in port operations/off‐peak hours Economic ‒ CVO traveler info Travel Time Reliability Competitiveness ‒ Truckload consolidation in urban areas ‒ Off‐peak demand strategies ‒ Truck parking and appointment information /reservation systems 1. Million vehicle miles travelled 4.2.2 Multimodal Enhancement Projects
This second category of improvement projects is intended to capture what can be thought of as more traditional highway capital investments. Many projects such as those noted below are already planned and/or programmed and are included in TxDOT’s UTP which is a listing of projects that are planned to be constructed or developed within the next ten years. The time horizon and cost of this category of projects for the purposes of the framework is 4–10 years, with costs up to $250 million.
Table 4‐4 provides the capital projects matched against goal areas for improvement that were evaluated for application in the corridor. Brief strategy descriptions are included as Appendix A.
February 2016 68
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 4‐4: Improvement Scenarios Framework – Candidate Multimodal Enhancement Projects Multimodal Enhancement Projects Goal Evaluation Metrics Medium‐High Cost (up to $250M) Medium Timeframe (5‐10 years) Non‐fatal Commercial Vehicle Crashes (crashes/100 ‒ Geometric or operational design enhancements Safety MVMT1) ‒ Expanded rest area parking Fatal Commercial Vehicle ‒ IVI2 Technology Investments3 Crashes ‒ Pavement rehabilitation or overlays Pavement Condition ‒ Roadway reconstruction Asset Bridge Clearance ‒ Improve bridge vertical clearance to 16’6” Management ‒ Bridge rehabilitation Bridge Condition ‒ Bridge replacement/reconstruction ‒ Interchange improvements to eliminate specific Mainline Level of Service bottlenecks Freight Mobility ‒ ITS, Corridor‐wide TMC4 network ‒ ITS technology infrastructure installation / Connectivity Mainline Average Truck ‒ Integrated Corridor Management/Mode Shift/Rail Speed Shuttle, Passenger Rail, Etc. ‒ Variable pricing HOV ‒ Add general purpose lanes/capacity Economic ‒ Add or expand frontage roads Travel Time Reliability Competitiveness ‒ Add passenger or truck only restricted lanes ‒ Dedicated truck ramps ‒ Increase bridge clearance to 18’6” 1. Million vehicle miles travelled 2. Intelligent Vehicle Initiative 3. May require private‐sector participation and legislative policy changes 4. Traffic Management Center 4.2.3 Horizon Projects/Policies
The third category of projects in the framework is intended to address non‐traditional freight mobility projects and/or strategies that due to their nature are very high cost and may require long time horizons due to regulatory hurdles, the state of technology, public acceptance, or private sector buy‐in. In many cases these projects will also require Congressional or legislative approval before they can be implemented. Horizon Projects/Policies are typically not location‐specific, but rather apply across the full corridor. Strategies to specifically address safety and asset management needs were not included as part of the Horizon Projects/Policies. These needs tend to be more short‐term and should be addressed in the appropriate timeframe. However; the scenarios identified to improve mobility, connectivity, and economic competitiveness also tended to have safety and asset management benefits.
Table ‐5 provides the Horizon Projects/Policies matched against goal areas that were evaluated for application for improvement in the corridor. Brief strategy descriptions are included as Appendix A.
February 2016 69
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 4‐5: Improvement Scenarios Framework – Candidate Horizon Projects/Policies Horizon Projects/Policies Goal Evaluation Metrics Higher Cost (greater than $250M) Long Timeframe (10+ years) Mainline Level of Service Freight Mobility ‒ Mainline Average Truck Conversion to heavy truck corridor / Connectivity ‒ Speed New freight technologies ‒ Conversion to “bridgeless” corridor (no mainline Economic Travel Time Reliability overpasses) Competitiveness
The effectiveness of alternative strategies is discussed in Section 4.3. Recommendations for the corridor and various segments that comprise the corridor may be a combination of multiple strategies across tiers (timeframes) depending on the results of the evaluation of their effectiveness in addressing freight needs. 4.3 Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies
The evaluation framework presented in Section 4.1 was applied to the range of potential improvement strategies presented in Section 4.2 to evaluate their likely overall effectiveness in addressing freight needs along the I‐45 freight corridor. The effectiveness evaluation and the recommended projects/strategies to be applied along the I‐45 freight corridor within each timeframe are discussed within this section. Specific applications of each of the recommended projects/strategies are discussed in Chapter 5.
4.3.1 Quick Start Projects / Strategies
The range of Quick Start Project / Strategy improvement scores are included in Table 4‐2 listed by highest scoring to lowest scoring. The strategies highlighted in green are recommended to be included in potential improvement packages to be developed for the I‐45 freight corridor.
Commercial Vehicle Operator (CVO) traveler information was the highest scoring Quick Start strategy as it was found to be highly effective in addressing both freight mobility and connectivity and economic competitiveness and somewhat effective in addressing safety. This was the only Quick Start strategy which was highly effective in addressing more than one goal area. ITS Collision Avoidance was the second highest scoring strategy. It is effective in addressing the same goal areas, but was found to be highly effective in addressing safety and somewhat effective in addressing both freight mobility and connectivity and economic competitiveness.
Additional Quick Start Strategies recommendations considered to be highly effective in addressing at least one goal area (applicable goal areas are in parentheses) are:
Changes in port operations and hours (economic competitiveness)
Truckload consolidation in urban areas (mobility and connectivity)
February 2016 70
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Detailed corridor safety analysis (safety)
Weigh‐in‐motion monitoring and enforcement (asset management) Three recommended Quick Start Strategies are thought to be somewhat effective for three of the four goal areas. These include bright striping of low bridges, public education/safety campaign, and restricted truck lanes within existing capacity.
Table 4‐2: Quick Start Strategy Potential Improvement Scores
Quick Start Addresses Goal Strategy Relative Strategy SAMMCEC Score Cost CVO traveler information 151 $$ ITS collision avoidance 96 $$ Changes in port operations and off‐peak hours 92 $$ Truckload consolidation in urban areas 71 $$$ Detailed corridor safety analysis 69 $ Weigh‐in‐motion monitoring and enforcement 67 $$ Public education / safety campaign 62 $$ Restricted truck lanes (no new capacity) 62 $ Bright striping of low bridges 61 $ Speed enforcement 53 $ Incident management programs 53 $$ Wayfinding signage 49 $ Off peak demand strategies 48 $$ Truck parking and appointment information / 36 $$ reservation systems Variable speed limits 26 $
$$$$$$ Relative Cost <$1M $1M‐$2.5M $2.5‐$5M SAMMCEC Goals Multimodal Economic Safety Asset Management Connectivity Competitiveness
Goal Area Ratings Highly Effective Somewhat Effective Not Effective Note: Scores may vary between strategies which have the same effectiveness measures based on the segment for which they apply.
February 2016 71
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
4.3.2 Multimodal Network Enhancement Projects
The range of Multimodal Network Enhancement Project improvement scores are included in Table 4‐3 listed by highest scoring to lowest scoring. The strategies highlighted in green are recommendations that should be included in potential improvement packages for the I‐45 freight corridor.
All of the recommended Multimodal Network Enhancement Projects are highly effective in addressing at least one of the I‐45 FCP goals. The highest scoring strategy was variable pricing HOV. This strategy was evaluated as highly effective in addressing both freight mobility and connectivity, and economic effectiveness. Bridge improvements also scored high under the Network Enhancement category.
Corridor‐wide asset management activities are included within this timeframe of potential improvements to include bridge maintenance and vertical clearances and pavement condition. Bridge improvements were separated into raising vertical clearance to 16’6” to meet current Interstate standards included in TxDOT’s Roadway Design Manual, raising vertical clearance to 18’6” to meet recommended TFMP standards, and replacement or reconstruction to address bridge condition issues. The scores of these strategies varied based on where they were applied along the corridor, but all strategies are recommended as part of a freight bridge program for the corridor. Pavement overlays or complete roadway reconstruction to address pavement condition issues received the same strategy score and should be implemented as a program as needed along the corridor.
Additional strategies which are recommended include addressing bottlenecks at intersections identified as national freight bottlenecks as well as those identified along the corridor by stakeholders, integrated corridor management to balance the movement of goods and people along the corridor along available modes, and added capacity with the construction of general purpose lanes.
February 2016 72
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 4‐3: Multimodal Network Enhancement Potential Improvement Scores Multimodal Network Enhancements Addresses Goal Strategy Relative Strategy SAMMCEC Score Cost Variable pricing HOV 138 $ Reconstruct bridge vertical clearance to 16'6" 126 $$$ Interchange improvements to eliminate specific 124 $$ bottlenecks Integrated Corridor Management/mode shift ‐ 120 $$ incentives rail shuttle, passenger rail, etc. Bridge replacement/reconstruction 119 $$$ Increase bridge clearance to 18'6" 113 $$$ Pavement rehabilitation or overlays 109 $ Roadway reconstruction 109 $$ Add general purpose lanes/capacity 106 $$$ IVI Technology Investments 87 $ Geometric or operational design enhancements 77 $$ Bridge rehabilitation 66 $$ ITS, corridor‐wide TMC network 62 $ ITS technology infrastructure installation 62 $$ Add passenger or truck only restricted lanes 62 $$$ Dedicated truck ramps 53 $$ Add or expand frontage roads 41 $$ Expanded rest area parking 13 $
$$$$$$ Relative Cost <$1M $1M‐$2.5M $2.5‐$5M SAMMCEC Goals Multimodal Economic Safety Asset Management Connectivity Competitiveness
Goal Area Ratings Highly Effective Somewhat Effective Not Effective
Note: Scores may vary between strategies which have the same effectiveness measures based on the segment for which they apply.
February 2016 73
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
4.3.3 Horizon Strategies
The range of Horizon Strategy improvement scores are included in Table 4‐4 listed by highest scoring to lowest scoring. All of the Horizon Strategies evaluated are recommended to be included in potential improvement packages to be developed for the I‐45 freight corridor.
Table 4‐4: Horizon Potential Improvement Scores Horizon Addresses Goal Strategy Relative Strategy SAMMCEC Score Cost New freight movement technologies 176 $$$ Conversion to "bridgeless" corridor (no mainlane 132 $$$ overpasses) Conversion to heavy truck corridor 109 $$$
$$$$$$ Relative Cost <$1M $1M‐$2.5M $2.5‐$5M SAMMCEC Goals Multimodal Economic Safety Asset Management Connectivity Competitiveness
Goal Area Ratings Highly Effective Somewhat Effective Not Effective
Note: Scores may vary between strategies which have the same effectiveness measures based on the segment for which they apply.
February 2016 74
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
5. Recommended Improvement Strageties
The recommended improvement strategies represent policies and programs that have the highest potential of improving freight operations along the I‐45 freight corridor. Each of the recommended strategies were evaluated to determine location‐specific implementation and timing based on identified needs and the planned and programmed projects within each corridor segment. This application of the recommended strategies is discussed within this chapter. 5.1 Quick Start Projects/Strategies
Quick Start projects and strategies are generally operational improvements that are relatively low cost with a short implementation timeframe. In general the Quick Start improvements are projects of $5 million or less, with implementation timelines of less than 4 years. Recommended Quick Start projects and strategies include:
CVO traveler information Weigh‐in‐motion monitoring and enforcement ITS Collision Avoidance Bright striping of low bridges Changes in port operations/off‐peak hours Public education / safety campaign Truckload consolidation in urban areas Restricted truck lanes (no new capacity) Detailed Corridor Safety Analysis
Table 5‐1 indicates the application, by corridor segment, of the Quick Start strategies, where the green strategies are the recommended strategies. The light green cells indicate the strategies that are recommended and the segments to which those strategies would be applied. The blue cells indicate the corridor segments where the non‐recommended strategies would be applied if they had been included in the recommendations. All of the recommended Quick Start improvements are applicable corridor‐ wide with the exception of: changes in port operations/off‐peak hours, truckload consolidation in urban areas, and restricted truck lanes within existing capacity. Port operational changes will effect operations along the full corridor, but implementation would be at the gulf ports adjacent to segment 2. Truckload consolidation would be most beneficial and should be implemented in the more urban areas of the corridor, including segments 1 through 4 and 9 and 10. Restricting truck lanes requires at least 3 travel lanes in each direction, so this strategy would not be applicable at this time in segments 6 through 8, and restrictions are already in place in segments 4, 5, 9, and 10. Accordingly, truck lane restrictions are only recommended for application in segments 1 through 3. As capacity is added in segments 6 through 8, restrictions should be considered.
Several of these strategies could be implemented in less than a year. Targeted CVO traveler information could be broadcast in areas of the corridor, mostly urban, where variable message signing is already in
February 2016 75
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report place. A program of bright striping low clearance bridges (58 crossing Primary Network roadways and 43 crossing Secondary Network roadways less than 16’ 6”) in the corridor so they are easily identifiable upon approach could be implemented relatively quickly as well. This would help prevent bridge strikes in advance of potential bridge infrastructure improvements recommended within later timeframes. A public education/safety campaign could begin along the corridor, or statewide, in conjunction with detailed safety analyses of specific “hot spots”. This effort could be done in advance of or in conjunction with a study regarding safety measures for truck/freight movements, which incorporate specific design and operational elements of truck traffic.
The remaining Quick Start improvements: ITS collision avoidance, changes in port operations and off‐ peak hours, truckload consolidation in urban areas, and weigh‐in‐motion monitoring and enforcement require either additional investments in equipment or coordination efforts with entities outside of TxDOT for implementation; therefore these strategies if pursued would likely be implemented toward the end of the estimated four‐year timeframe. 5.2 Multimodal Enhancement Projects
Multimodal Enhancement Projects generally have an implementation timeframe of four to ten years and are estimated to cost up to $250 million. Improvements within this timeframe are generally more traditional highway capital investments including roadway and bridge construction projects. Recommended Multimodal Enhancement Projects and strategies include:
Variable pricing HOV Reconstruct bridge vertical clearance to 16'6"or 18’6” Interchange improvements to eliminate specific bottlenecks Integrated Corridor Management/Mode Shift/Rail Shuttle, Passenger Rail, etc. Bridge rehabilitation, replacement, or reconstruction Roadway reconstruction/pavement rehabilitation or overlays Add general purpose lanes/capacity
Table 5‐2 indicates the application, by corridor segment, of the Multimodal Network Enhancement projects/strategies, where the green strategies are the recommended strategies. . The light green cells indicate the strategies that are recommended and the segments to which those strategies would be applied. The blue cells indicate the corridor segments where the non‐recommended strategies would be applied if they had been included in the recommendations. Due to the nature of these projects, these recommendations are typically not corridor‐wide, rather they apply to specific locations of identified needs within the corridor. The exception is Integrated Corridor Management (ICM). ICM involves a coordinated effort between all modes of freight and passenger movements to manage the corridor as an overall multimodal system rather than separate individual services for the purpose of leveraging existing capacity in whatever mode it may exist. ICM seeks to facilitate shifting freight and passenger demands from congested facilities to those that have additional existing capacity.
February 2016 76
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
The suite of bridge improvements would be applied as necessary to address the identified bridge deficiency, whether it be low vertical clearance or a bridge in poor condition. The determination of the proper method for remedying the deficiency (raising the bridge, lowering the roadbed beneath the bridge, rehabilitation or complete reconstruction) would be determined on a site‐by‐site basis based on the need and the most beneficial engineering solution. Specific bridge deficiencies to be addressed include:
Bridges under 16’ 6” o 59 bridges crossing Primary Network roadways o 43 bridges crossing other Secondary Network roadways
Bridges under 18’ 8” o Seventy‐six bridges crossing Primary Network roadways
Four bridges in poor condition
Pavement rehabilitation and roadway reconstruction improvements would also be applied as needed. For the I‐45 FCP, pavements in segments 1 through 3 and 8 through 10 were deemed to be in fair or worse condition. The decision to rehabilitate or reconstruct the roadways facilities should be determined on a site‐by‐site basis. Pavement conditions in the other sections will continue to deteriorate. TxDOT monitors pavement conditions throughout the state, and the facilities on the Freight Highway network should be repaired as needed.
The addition of general purpose lanes is suggested only across segments 1 through 6, which had identified mobility and connectivity and economic competitiveness needs, as this strategy addresses those needs. Additional capacity is not always as simple as an additional lane, particularly in the urban Houston areas (segments 2 and 3 and portions of segments 1 and 4). Efforts to increase freight mobility and connectivity and economic competitiveness in these segments should be closely coordinated with the ongoing North Houston Highway Improvement Program which is being conducted by the TxDOT Houston District. If an additional (third) lane is constructed within segment 6, consideration should be given to truck restricted lanes (Quick Start strategy) within that segment.
Variable pricing HOV is also applied only across segments 1 through 6, which had identified mobility and connectivity needs, as well as economic competitiveness needs. It is noted that separate HOV facilities do not currently exist within segments 1 and 6, so additional accommodations would have to be given to implement this strategy in those locations.
All of the Multimodal Network Enhancements should be implemented in logical stages. It is not assumed that all of these recommendations will be implemented throughout the corridor within the four‐ to ten‐ year timeframe. It is also not feasible to only implement single recommendations throughout the corridor, such as just increasing bridge clearances throughout the corridor. Rather bridge clearances should be addressed in conjunction with other projects as they are implemented throughout the
February 2016 77
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report corridor. As projects are implemented along the corridor, all recommended improvements should be considered. If HOV facilities are added, the bridge deficiencies in that location should additionally be addressed. If capacity is added, other factors to address specific freight bottlenecks should be evaluated. 5.3 Horizon Strategies
Horizon strategies are non‐traditional freight mobility projects and/or strategies that due to their nature are very high cost (greater than $250 million) and may require long time horizons (more than 10 years) due to regulatory hurdles, the state of technology, public acceptance, or private sector buy‐in. The recommended Horizon strategies are:
New freight movement technologies Conversion to "bridgeless" corridor (no bridged crossing mainline) Conversion to heavy truck corridor
Table 5‐2 indicates the application, by corridor segment, of the Horizon strategies. The light green cells indicate the strategies that are recommended and the segments to which those strategies would be applied. All Horizon strategies would have a corridor‐wide, staged implementation and all strategies are recommended for implementation. A logical sequence would be determined based on freight movements, volumes, origins, and destinations. The implementation of these Horizon strategies would ultimately involve bundling many of the recommended Quick Start and Multimodal Network Enhancements projects and strategies, and may include other actions that have not been recommended as part of this plan. Recommendations that are implemented need to be forward thinking and developed with these Horizon Strategies in mind. Additionally, strategies that are not currently recommended, such as new or expanded frontage roads, dedicated truck ramps, specific geometric design enhancements, and a corridor‐wide TMC, would likely be implemented in conjunction with, or as part of, any of these Horizon strategies; therefore, future accommodations for these strategies should be considered during Quick Start and Multimodal Network Enhancement improvement implementation.
February 2016 78 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report Table 5‐1: Quick Start Strategy Application Recommendations 7 8 6 5 1 10 9 Leon 4 3 2 Segment/County(ies) Navarro Walker Montgomery Harris Dallas Ellis Navarro Madison Harris Harris Harris Freestone Montgomery Harris Galveston Walker Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Safety Poor Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good or Very Segment Asset Management Poor Fair Fair Fair Very Poor Fair Poor Very Poor Fair Good Performance Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Mobility and Connectivity Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Poor Ratings Good Good Good Good Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Economic Competitiveness Poor Very Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor Good Good Good Good Good Add Managed Add Managed Lanes, Overlay, Widen Programmed Widen Lanes, Add Managed Reconstruct Reconstruct Frontage Roads, Lighting, NA Mainlines, Seal NA (UTP or in adopted LRTP) Mainlines Construct Park Lanes Frontage TSM*, Lighting Reconstruct Coat Current and Ride Roads, TSM*, Frontage Roads Lighting Programmed Widen ML and or Planned Add Auxilary Widen Widen FR, Add Projects Widen Lanes, Ramp Add Managed Lanes, Widen Widen Mainlines, Mainlines, Managed/Expr Planned NA NA Mainlines, Modifications, Mainlines, Reconstruct Mainlines and Rehabilitation, Construct ess/HOV Lanes, Overlay Construct SH Interchange Frontage Roads Overlay Frontage Roads Reconstruct 99 Interchange Interchange
Quick Start Improvement Strategies Relative Strategy Score Application Comments Cost
CVO traveler information 151 $$ Corridor‐wide
ITS Collision Avoidance 96 $$ Corridor‐wide
Changes in port operations/off‐ 92 $$ At ports peak hours Truckload consolidation in urban 71 $$$ Urban/Suburban areas areas
Detailed Corridor Safety Analysis 69 $ Corridor‐wide
Weigh‐in‐motion monitoring and 67 $$ Corridor‐wide enforcement Public education / safety 62 $$ Corridor‐wide campaign Restricted truck lanes (no new 62 $ Restrictions in place Restrictions in place Need minimumof 6 lanes capacity)
# crossing Primary Network / Bright striping of low bridges 61 $ 9/0 17/0 15/0 10/0 17/1 8/0 15/0 6/0 18/3 20/0 # crossing Secondary Network
*Transportation System Management
February 2016 79 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
7 8 6 5 1 10 9 Leon 4 3 2 Segment/County(ies) Navarro Walker Montgomery Harris Dallas Ellis Navarro Madison Harris Harris Harris Freestone Montgomery Harris Galveston Walker Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Safety Poor Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good or Very Segment Asset Management Poor Fair Fair Fair Very Poor Fair Poor Very Poor Fair Good Performance Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Mobility and Connectivity Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Poor Ratings Good Good Good Good Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Economic Competitiveness Poor Very Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor Good Good Good Good Good Add Managed Add Managed Lanes, Overlay, Widen Programmed Widen Lanes, Add Managed Reconstruct Reconstruct Frontage Roads, Lighting, NA Mainlines, Seal NA (UTP or in adopted LRTP) Mainlines Construct Park Lanes Frontage TSM*, Lighting Reconstruct Coat Current and Ride Roads, TSM*, Frontage Roads Lighting Programmed Widen ML and or Planned Add Auxilary Widen Widen FR, Add Projects Widen Lanes, Ramp Add Managed Lanes, Widen Widen Mainlines, Mainlines, Managed/Expr Planned NA NA Mainlines, Modifications, Mainlines, Reconstruct Mainlines and Rehabilitation, Construct ess/HOV Lanes, Overlay Construct SH Interchange Frontage Roads Overlay Frontage Roads Reconstruct 99 Interchange Interchange
Quick Start Improvement Strategies Relative Strategy Score Application Comments Cost
Speed enforcement 53 $ Safety need areas
Safety need and adjacent Incident management programs 53 $$ Programs in place areas
Wayfinding signage 49 $ Urban/Suburban areas
Off peak demand strategies 48 $$ MC and EC need areas1
Expanded truck parking and appointment information/ 36 $$ Urban/Suburban areas reservation systems
1 Variable Speed Limits 26 $ MC and EC need areas
1 Multimodal Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness need areas *Transportation System Management
February 2016 80 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report Table 5‐2: Multimodal Network Enhancement Strategy Application Recommendations 7 8 6 5 1 10 9 Leon 4 3 2 Segment/County(ies) Navarro Walker Montgomery Harris Dallas Ellis Navarro Madison Harris Harris Harris Freestone Montgomery Harris Galveston Walker Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Safety Poor Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good or Very Segment Asset Management Poor Fair Fair Fair Very Poor Fair Poor Very Poor Fair Good Performance Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Mobility and Connectivity Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Poor Ratings Good Good Good Good Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Economic Competitiveness Poor Very Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor Good Good Good Good Good Add Managed Add Managed Lanes, Overlay, Widen Programmed Widen Lanes, Add Managed Reconstruct Reconstruct Frontage Roads, Lighting, NA Mainlines, Seal NA (UTP or in adopted LRTP) Mainlines Construct Park Lanes Frontage TSM*, Lighting Reconstruct Coat Current and Ride Roads, TSM*, Frontage Roads Lighting Programmed Widen ML and or Planned Add Auxilary Widen Widen FR, Add Projects Widen Lanes, Ramp Add Managed Lanes, Widen Widen Mainlines, Mainlines, Managed/Expr Planned NA NA Mainlines, Modifications, Mainlines, Reconstruct Mainlines and Rehabilitation, Construct ess/HOV Lanes, Overlay Construct SH Interchange Frontage Roads Overlay Frontage Roads Reconstruct 99 Interchange Interchange
Multimodal Network Enhancement Improvement Strategies Relative Strategy Score Application Comments Cost
Variable pricing HOV 138 $ MC and EC need areas1
Reconstruct bridge vertical # crossing Primary Network / 126 $$$ 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/3 0/0 clearance to 16'6" # crossing Secondary Network
Interchange improvements to US 287/ 124 $$ I‐20 I‐45Bus SH 7/US 79 Loop 335 610N, BW 8I‐10, US 59 I‐610S ATRI, Stakeholder ID eliminate specific bottlenecks FM1394/SH 84 Integrated Corridor Management/Mode Shift/Rail 120 $$ Corridor‐wide Shuttle, Passenger Rail, Etc Bridge rehabilitation 119 $$$ 13Bridges in poor condition /replacement / reconstruction
Increase bridge clearance to 18'6" 113$$$9171510178 156 1820# crossing Primary Network
Pavement rehabilitation or 109 $ Pavement fair or worse overlays
Roadway reconstruction 109 $$ Pavement fair or worse
Add general purpose 106 $$$ MC and EC need areas1 lanes/capacity 1 Multimodal Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness need areas *Transportation System Management
February 2016 81 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
7 8 6 5 1 10 9 Leon 4 3 2 Segment/County(ies) Navarro Walker Montgomery Harris Dallas Ellis Navarro Madison Harris Harris Harris Freestone Montgomery Harris Galveston Walker Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Safety Poor Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good or Very Segment Asset Management Poor Fair Fair Fair Very Poor Fair Poor Very Poor Fair Good Performance Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Mobility and Connectivity Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Poor Ratings Good Good Good Good Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Economic Competitiveness Poor Very Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor Good Good Good Good Good Add Managed Add Managed Lanes, Overlay, Widen Programmed Widen Lanes, Add Managed Reconstruct Reconstruct Frontage Roads, Lighting, NA Mainlines, Seal NA (UTP or in adopted LRTP) Mainlines Construct Park Lanes Frontage TSM*, Lighting Reconstruct Coat Current and Ride Roads, TSM*, Frontage Roads Lighting Programmed Widen ML and or Planned Add Auxilary Widen Widen FR, Add Projects Widen Lanes, Ramp Add Managed Lanes, Widen Widen Mainlines, Mainlines, Managed/Expr Planned NA NA Mainlines, Modifications, Mainlines, Reconstruct Mainlines and Rehabilitation, Construct ess/HOV Lanes, Overlay Construct SH Interchange Frontage Roads Overlay Frontage Roads Reconstruct 99 Interchange Interchange
Multimodal Network Enhancement Improvement Strategies Relative Strategy Score Application Comments Cost
IVI Technology Investments 87 $ Corridor‐wide
Geometric or operational design Safety, MC, and EC need 77 $$ enhancements areas1
ITS, Corridor‐wide TMC network 62 $ Corridor‐wide
ITS Technology Infrastructure Where not existing or 62 $$ installation programmed Add passenger or truck only 62 $$$ Corridor‐wide restricted lanes
Dedicated truck ramps 53 $$ Ports and inland ports
No Frontage Road or 2‐way Add or expand frontage roads 41 $$ Frontage Roads
1 Multimodal Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness need areas *Transportation System Management
February 2016 82 I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Table 5‐3 Horizon Strategy Application Recommendations 7 8 6 5 1 10 9 Leon 4 3 2 Segment/County(ies) Navarro Walker Montgomery Harris Dallas Ellis Navarro Madison Harris Harris Harris Freestone Montgomery Harris Galveston Walker Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Safety Poor Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good or Very Segment Asset Management Poor Fair Fair Fair Very Poor Fair Poor Very Poor Fair Good Performance Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Mobility and Connectivity Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor Poor Ratings Good Good Good Good Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Good or Very Economic Competitiveness Poor Very Poor Poor Very Poor Very Poor Good Good Good Good Good Add Managed Add Managed Lanes, Overlay, Widen Programmed Widen Lanes, Add Managed Reconstruct Reconstruct Frontage Roads, Lighting, NA Mainlines, Seal NA (UTP or in adopted LRTP) Mainlines Construct Park Lanes Frontage TSM*, Lighting Reconstruct Coat Current and Ride Roads, TSM*, Frontage Roads Lighting Programmed Widen ML and or Planned Add Auxilary Widen Widen FR, Add Projects Widen Lanes, Ramp Add Managed Lanes, Widen Widen Mainlines, Mainlines, Managed/Expr Planned NA NA Mainlines, Modifications, Mainlines, Reconstruct Mainlines and Rehabilitation, Construct ess/HOV Lanes, Overlay Construct SH Interchange Frontage Roads Overlay Frontage Roads Reconstruct 99 Interchange Interchange
Horizon Improvement Strategies Relative Strategy Score Application Comments Cost New freight movement 176 $$$ Corridor‐wide technologies Conversion to "bridgeless" 132 $$$ Corridor‐wide corridor (no mainline overpasses)
Conversion to heavy truck corridor 109 $$$ Corridor‐wide
*Transportation System Management
February 2016 83
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
5.4 Anticipated Outcomes
In considering the implementation of strategies and projects laid out in this planning document, it is important to consider the rapid and accelerating pace of technological change. History has shown that the rate of technology adoption is contracting; e.g. while it took 35 years for the telephone to be adopted by one‐quarter of the U.S. population, it took just seven years for the same level of adoption of the worldwide web. Research suggests that the pace of technological adoption is increasing exponentially. With that in mind, it is important to point‐out that transportation technology today stands on the edge of a revolution, as noted by US DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx: "Connected, automated vehicles that can sense the environment around them and communicate with other vehicles and with infrastructure have the potential to revolutionize road safety and save thousands of lives."5 As the range of potential improvements identified by this analysis are developed in response to the identified corridor needs, new technologies that enable new solutions will also emerge. Therefore it is important to recognize that technological advances and policy changes that have not even been considered may become standard industry/agency practice during the forecast period and thus may influence/alter the recommendations for this report.
It is equally important to recall the context of this corridor plan to focus outcomes on improving freight mobility. As the TFMP points out: “The freight transportation system is vital for efficient supply chains. Modal performance, cost and efficiency are all factors that determine logistics hub locations, sourcing raw materials and locating manufacturing facilities.”6 According to the Brookings Institution’s Global Cities Initiative trade accounts for $420.5 billion or 15.9 percent of the Dallas‐Forth‐Worth regional economy. For the Houston region, trade accounts for $511.9 billion or 23.9 percent of the regional economy. The Houston region is Dallas’ number‐one domestic trade partner, with trade between the two cities valued at more than $25 billion.7 Supply chains are the conduit of modern business for getting goods to consumers, and velocity of the supply chain not only cuts business costs (e.g. less inventory) but it also is a strategic advantage in responding to ever changing consumer demands. In effect, improvements in freight mobility within the I‐45 corridor will translate directly into more efficient, more responsive supply chains that fuel the two largest metropolitan economies in Texas.
5 CNET: US Transportation Secretary Foxx talks autonomous cars in Silicon Valley. May 13, 2015 http://www.cnet.com/news/u‐ s‐transportation‐secretary‐anthony‐foxx‐talks‐autonomous‐cars‐v2v‐communication‐requirements‐in/ 6 Texas Freight Mobility Plan – Draft, pg. 3‐10 7 Brookings Institute Metro Freight Series; Interactive Data: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/06/metro‐ freight#interactives
February 2016 84
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
6. Next Steps
The recommendations of the I‐45 Freight Corridor Plan identify three tiers of public policy and investment improvement strategies that address freight needs along I‐45 between Galveston and Dallas. This plan will assist TxDOT in achieving the goals of supporting private sector supply chains, enhancing freight mobility, and improving the economic competitiveness of the region and state. The actions and investments identified will help to provide efficient, reliable, and safe freight transportation along the corridor while maintaining quality of life in the adjacent communities. While the Texas Freight Mobility Plan has set broad freight movement objectives and performance targets for the state’s freight network, the I‐45 FCP identifies and recommends improvements to specifically address the needs along this vital freight corridor.
TxDOT districts along the I‐45 freight corridor (Houston, Bryan, and Dallas) and TxDOT administration will utilize the I‐45 FCP recommendations as a guidebook for freight system improvements in the I‐45 corridor. The short‐ and long‐term improvement strategies identified, including infrastructure enhancements, operational improvements, and freight policies, will be implemented along I‐45 to create a cohesive, freight‐friendly corridor.
Passage of Proposition 7 by Texas voters, in November of 2015, will provide additional funds for TxDOT to begin to develop the recommended strategies along the corridor. Additionally, the federal FAST Act, enacted in December of 2015, provides dedicated Federal funding for freight projects, which may help to advance the recommended strategies in the project development process. To prioritize the recommendations of the I‐45 FCP, TxDOT should identify freight related factors within their project development and prioritization process on Freight Network highways such as I‐45, to highlight freight‐centric needs within the state.
February 2016 85
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A
Improvement Strategy Descriptions
This page intentionally left blank.
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Improvement Strategy Descriptions
To address I‐45 freight mobility needs, candidate short, medium, and long‐term improvement scenarios have been identified. The three tiers of solutions align with the typical timeframe required from project identification through project implementation. These tiers, with range of implementation costs and project delivery time, are:
Quick Start Projects/Strategies: relatively quick and low cost projects addressing immediate, “hot spot” issues (<$5 million; 1‐4 years) Multimodal Network Enhancements: intended to capture what can be thought of as more traditional highway capital investments (up to $250 million; 5‐10 years, aligned with the UTP) Horizon Strategies: intended to address non‐traditional projects and/or policies that due to their nature are very high cost and may require long time horizons due to regulatory hurdles, the state of technology, public acceptance, or private sector buy‐in (greater than $250 million; 10 or more years; not included in current scope of the UTP; or requires a legislative change)
Following are examples of the potential projects, strategies, and policy implementations that are being considered for I‐45. For each candidate strategy, the following information is provided:
Strategies – listing of the elements of a general strategy that have been considered for I‐45 application
Primary and secondary I‐45 freight objective, with the objectives drawn from statewide freight mobility goals identified in the Texas Freight Mobility Plan
Case study source – link to a case study or strategy evaluation document that has been used to evaluate individual strategy effectiveness. Case studies for some candidate strategies could not be identified, as the strategies are either too new, specific to the corridor, or the effectiveness is intuitive (i.e., roadway reconstruction would be highly effective in addressing pavement condition). In those instances where a case study was unavailable, engineering judgment was used to analyze the effectiveness.
Effectiveness – anticipated effectiveness in addressing defined I‐45 freight mobility issues that have been identified in the I‐45 FCP, based on experience derived from the identified case studies
Cost – relative cost of the improvement strategy (low, moderate, or high); more detailed costs would be depend on the quantity (length, numbers, etc.) of the actual deployment, to be defined in subsequent project development activities
February 2016 A-1
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Quick Start Strategies
Speed enforcement:
Strategies: targeted enforcement on high crash segments, aerial speed enforcement (via helicopters, and more recently drones), stationed patrol vehicles, automated speed enforcement using photo radar, traffic enforcement notification signs (automated signs that provide drivers feedback on their speed or signs that are placed near a roadway just before vehicles enter the enforcement zone) Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Economic Competitiveness Case study source: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPR/Research/reportsandplans/Reports/2007/Safet y/134220‐FR.pdf Effectiveness: somewhat effective at reducing fatal and nonfatal crash rates. Also somewhat effective at improving travel time reliability (economic competitiveness) and mobility and connectivity due to lower crash rates Cost: low (depending on strategy used) Incident management programs:
Strategies: Consists of a planned and coordinated multi‐disciplinary process to detect, respond to, and clear traffic incidents so that traffic flow may be restored as safely and quickly as possible. Effective TIM reduces the duration and impacts of traffic incidents and improves the safety of motorists, crash victims and emergency responders. Includes such items as early detection of incidents, quick response times, traffic control, fast clearance, etc. Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Case study sources: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/about/tim.htm http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/rept_mis/13286.pdf Effectiveness: somewhat effective at reducing crash rates as incidents are clearly marked, somewhat effective at improving mobility and economic competitiveness as incidents are cleared quicker allowing traffic flow to return to normal faster Cost: moderate Public education/safety campaign:
Strategies: safety messages on dynamic messaging signs, commercials, billboards, social media messages, newspaper articles Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Economic Competitiveness Case study source: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop14015/index.htm Effectiveness: somewhat effective at reducing crash rates, Also somewhat effective at improving travel time reliability and mobility and connectivity Cost: low to moderate February 2016 A-2
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Restricted truck lanes within existing capacity:
Strategies: lane restrictions for trucks on sections of roadway with at least three lanes in one direction Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Case study source: http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/hvy_trks/HTapp9.htm Effectiveness: somewhat effective at reducing crash rates; also somewhat effective at improving mobility and travel time reliability Cost: low Truck parking and appointment information/reservation systems:
Strategies: Utilize ITS technologies to provide commercial vehicle drivers with information about parking availability at Safety Rest Areas and participating truck stops and scheduled pick‐up and delivery appointments at participating businesses. Research has shown that when parking capacity is tight, drivers spend unproductive time exiting and re‐entering freeways searching for parking to comply with hours‐of‐service (HOS) regulations. By transmitting information about parking availability and extending the opportunity to make a reservation, commercial vehicle drivers are more productive and are better able to comply with HOS break and rest requirements. Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Economic Competitiveness Case study source: http://tsrc.berkeley.edu/SmartTruckParkingForecastingParkingAvailabilityatTruckStops Effectiveness: somewhat effective at reducing crash rates and travel time reliability Cost: moderate Bright Striping of low bridges:
Strategies: Put a bright stripe on bottom edge of low clearance bridges Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Asset Management Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: somewhat effective at reducing crash rates and impacting bridge condition and bridge clearance issues, also somewhat effective at improving mobility if there are fewer crashes impacting traffic flow Cost: low
February 2016 A-3
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Detailed corridor safety analysis: Strategies: safety corridor analysis to determine where most incidents occur and recommend strategies to alleviate incidents such as roadway redesign, adding warning signs, re‐evaluating speed limit Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Asset Management Case study source: http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/SafetyCorridorSynthesis.pdf Effectiveness: highly effective at reducing crash rates and somewhat effective at improving travel reliability time Cost: low ITS collision avoidance:
Strategies: cooperative vehicle‐to‐vehicle (v2v) and vehicle‐to‐infrastructure (v2i) communications technologies and autonomous on‐board systems. V2v uses computers aboard each car process the various readings being broadcast by other vehicles 10 times every second, each time calculating the chance of an impending collision. Transmitters use a dedicated portion of wireless spectrum as well as a new wireless standard, 802.11p, to authenticate each message. V2i technology allows cars to communicate with infrastructure elements, like stop lights. Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Case study source: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/infrastructure‐systems‐technology/advanced‐vehicle‐technology/crash‐ avoidance‐technology‐evaluation Effectiveness: highly effective at reducing crash rates and somewhat effective at improving mobility and travel reliability time Cost: moderate
February 2016 A-4
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Weigh‐in‐motion monitoring and enforcement: Strategies: Undertake an integrated approach to monitor truck axle weights (a primary factor in pavement wear) and gross vehicle weight (primary factor in bridge life) at highway speeds, weigh‐in‐ motion (WIM) scales can be installed in the pavement or can be portable. WIM installations can be installed near Safety Rest Areas, or pull‐outs can be constructed in monitored segments for vehicle inspections, allowing mobile enforcement teams to “plug‐in” quickly to periodically monitor and conduct enforcement actions. This WIM data can be used to monitor traffic and guide enforcement actions. This strategy is consistent with Virtual Weigh Stations (VWS) that allow roadside enforcement personnel to monitor traffic from inside their vehicle on laptop computers to electronically and visually identify potential violators. Primary objective: Asset Management Secondary objective: N/A Case study source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/natmec/00022.pdf http://www.itsinternational.com/categories/enforcement/features/weigh‐in‐motion‐technology‐ aids‐overweight‐vehicle‐reduction/ Effectiveness: highly effective at improving bridge and pavement condition and somewhat effective at enhancing safe operations as overweight trucks are less safe. Weight enforcement also creates a level playing field for ethical operators and as a result enhances economic competitiveness. Cost: moderate Wayfinding signage:
Strategies: signs and variable message signs that help commercial vehicles navigate the “last mile” and eliminate unnecessary exits and re‐entry to I‐45 when looking for pick‐up and drop‐off areas for loads Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity Secondary objective: Economic competitiveness Case study source: http://www.thesignagefoundation.org/Portals/0/UrbanWayfindingPlanningImplementationManual Website.pdf Effectiveness: somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability Cost: low Variable speed limits:
Strategies: ITS application that varies upstream speed limits based on congestion or incidents down the road Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Secondary objective: N/A Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: somewhat effective improving mobility Cost: low
February 2016 A-5
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Changes in port operations and off‐peak port hours: Strategies: integrated port communication systems, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology to Measure and Report on Truck Movements, cargo owners and their carriers move cargo at night‐time periods and on weekends, as a way of reducing truck traffic during peak day time periods around the Ports, alleviating Port congestion (for example, at truck gates at marine terminals), and reducing air quality impacts from high peak‐period truck traffic volumes Primary objective: Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity Case study source: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09014/sect2.htm https://www.panynj.gov/port/pdf/pptf‐final‐report‐june‐2014.pdf http://www2.laufer.com/mega‐ships‐demanding‐change‐in‐port‐operations.html http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2013‐07‐ia‐port‐services.pdf Effectiveness: somewhat effective improving mobility, highly effective at improving travel time reliability Cost: moderate CVO traveler information:
Strategies: commercial vehicle electronic clearance, automated roadside inspections, on‐board safety monitoring, commercial vehicle administrative processes, hazardous material incident response, commercial fleet management, and targeted variable message sign notifications to warn of congestion, incidents, roadwork zones or speed limits on a specific highway segment. They may also ask vehicles to take alternative routes, limit travel speed, warn of duration and location of the incidents or just inform of the traffic conditions. Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity Secondary objective: Economic competitiveness Case study sources: http://www.eolss.net/sample‐chapters/c05/e6‐40‐03‐04.pdf http://nexus.umn.edu/papers/vms.pdf Effectiveness: National research has shown high returns on investment and good results for improving freight mobility and travel time reliability and somewhat effective at reducing crash rates Cost: moderate
February 2016 A-6
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Truckload consolidation in urban areas: Strategies: Cross docking /consolidation / deconsolidation centers in urban areas. The goal of this strategy is to reduce empty truck trips and increase load factors (i.e. reduce partially‐full trucks) traveling between urban centers like Houston and Dallas. Fully loaded over‐the‐road trucks (5‐axle semis) transport goods between staging areas were freight is sorted and reloaded into urban delivery vehicles. A complementary strategy is taking steps to provide adequate loading zones and parking to support loading and unloading of goods at freight facilities. Truck dimensions must also be taken into account in industrial, commercial, and freight facility site design. Roadways and driveways within these sites must allow for safe and efficient passage of trucks. Primary objective: Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: N/A Case study source: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/ncfrp_rpt_014.pdf http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12006/sec_4.htm Effectiveness: A case study of an urban consolidation center established in Bristol, UK (NCFRP 14) found that delivery vehicle movements were reduced by 75 percent after establishing a downtown warehouse to consolidate and service urban retail establishments, suggesting a highly effective strategy for reducing congestion and improving mobility and connectivity. This strategy is also somewhat effective improving travel time reliability. Cost: high (would likely require a public/private partnership for cost sharing) Off‐peak demand strategies:
Strategies: identify opportunities and incentives for cargo owners and their carriers to move cargo at night‐time periods and on weekends, as a way of reducing truck traffic during peak day time periods on major highways Primary objective: Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity Case study source: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/10%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Fr eight%20Movement.pdf Effectiveness: somewhat effective improving mobility, travel time reliability, and safety Cost: moderate
February 2016 A-7
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Multimodal Network Enhancements
Geometric or operational design enhancements:
Strategies: changes to roadway geometry to allow for better truck movements such as reducing the angle of turns and ensuring there are no steep climbs. Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Freight mobility and connectivity and economic competitiveness Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: highly effective at reducing crash rates, somewhat effective at improving mobility, travel time reliability Cost: moderate Expanded rest area parking:
Strategies: expand truck parking at rest areas to ensure a safe stopping point for drivers who need to stop due to new hours of service requirements Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: N/A Case study source: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/documents/cmvrptcgr/cmvrptcgr052012.pdf http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/truck_parking/jasons_law/truckparkingsurvey/ jasons_law.pdf Effectiveness: somewhat effective at reducing crash rates Cost: moderate Intelligent vehicle initiative (IVI) technology investments:
Strategies: the IVI Program has focused on accelerating the development and commercialization of vehicle‐based and infrastructure cooperative driver assistance products that warn drivers of dangerous situations, recommend actions, and even assume partial control of vehicles to avoid collisions Primary objective: Safety Secondary objective: Freight mobility and connectivity and economic competitiveness Case study source: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_pr/14153_files/ivi.pdf Effectiveness: somewhat effective at reducing crash rates, preventing crashes at low structures, improving mobility, and travel time reliability Cost: low (will require private sector participation and investment)
February 2016 A-8
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Pavement rehabilitation or overlays: Strategies: patch pavement or lay either Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) or Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) over an existing pavement structure Primary objective: Asset Management Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: highly effective at improving pavement conditions, somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability Cost: low Roadway reconstruction:
Strategies: total reconstruction of roadway Primary objective: Asset Management Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: highly effective at improving pavement conditions, somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability Cost: moderate Reconstruct bridge vertical clearance to 16'6":
Strategies: reconstruct bridges with low vertical clearance to a vertical clearance of 16'6" Primary objective: Asset Management Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: highly effective at increasing vertical clearance and improving pavement conditions, somewhat effective at improving freight mobility, travel time reliability, and safety reducing bridge strikes Cost: moderate Bridge rehabilitation:
Strategies: improvements to bridge superstructure and substructure Primary objective: Asset Management Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: highly effective at improving bridge conditions, somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability Cost: moderate
February 2016 A-9
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Bridge replacement/reconstruction: Strategies: complete reconstruction of bridges in poor condition Primary objective: Asset Management Secondary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity and Economic Competitiveness Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: highly effective at improving bridge conditions and bride vertical clearance, somewhat effective at improving freight mobility, travel time reliability, and safety reducing bridge strikes Cost: high Interchange improvements to eliminate specific bottlenecks:
Strategies: improvements to ramps and weaving sections, adjusting degree of curvature and grade of incline Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity/Economic Competitiveness Secondary objective: N/A Case study source: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/frwy_mgmt_handbook/chapter5.htm Effectiveness: highly effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability, somewhat effective as improving safety Cost: moderate ITS, Corridor‐wide TMC network:
Strategies: A Transportation Management Center (TMC) is the hub or nerve center of most freeway operations and management systems in urban areas. TMCs collect and process the data about the freeway system flows/operations and fuse it with other operational and control data, synthesized to produce "information", and distributed to stakeholders such as the media, other agencies, and the traveling public – typically confined to the urban area where the TMC is located. Most TMC information is orientated to morning and evening commuters. However, because commercial vehicle drivers tend to travel longer trips and frequently cross over multiple TMC areas on a daily basis, providing corridor level information that integrates conditional information from TMCs in a single corridor can provide more useful congestion and incident information to CMV drivers. Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity/Economic Competitiveness Secondary objective: N/A Case study source: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/intermodal/freight_tech_story/sectionthree.htm http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/trans_mgmnt.htm Effectiveness: somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability and safety Cost: moderate
February 2016 A-10
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Integrated corridor management/mode shift ‐ Incentives Rail shuttle, passenger rail, etc.: Strategies: distance related fee for trucks, congestion pricing, subsidized transit passes, subsidies for using the UP rail shuttle that runs from Houston to Dallas, or higher tolls/taxes/fees for trucks on the road, road and parking pricing, etc. Primary objective: Freight mobility and connectivity/Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: Asset Management Case study source: http://www.handyshippingguide.com/shipping‐news/incentive‐for‐container‐freight‐to‐make‐modal‐shift‐ from‐road‐haulage‐to‐shipping‐by‐water_4461 https://www.wec‐policies.enerdata.eu/Documents/cases‐studies/trucks‐case‐study‐report.pdf http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Transport ation%20Demand%20Management.pdf http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/07%20SEATTLE%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Transport ation%20Demand%20Management.pdf Effectiveness: highly effective at improving mobility, somewhat effective at improving travel time reliability, and asset management Cost: moderate ITS, technology infrastructure installation:
Strategies: vehicle‐to‐infrastructure technologies, dynamic messaging signs Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity/Economic Competitiveness Secondary objective: Safety Case study source: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/intermodal/freight_tech_story/sectionthree.htm Effectiveness: somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability, and somewhat effective at reducing crash rates Cost: moderate
February 2016 A-11
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Variable pricing HOV: Strategies: convert high occupancy vehicle lanes to a managed lane that has a variable pricing based on congestion and allows high occupancy vehicles and trucks Primary objective: Freight mobility and connectivity/Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: N/A Case study sources: http://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies‐pdfs/added‐capacity/technical‐summary/managed‐hov‐hot‐lanes‐ 4‐pg.pdf http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/5‐4160‐01‐1.pdf http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0‐6688‐1.pdf Effectiveness: highly effective at improving travel time reliability and freight mobility Cost: low Add general purpose lanes/capacity:
Strategies: construction of additional general purpose lanes for extra capacity Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity/Economic Competitiveness Secondary objective: N/A Case study sources: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/frwy_mgmt_handbook/chapter5.htm http://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies‐pdfs/added‐capacity/technical‐summary/adding‐new‐ lanes‐or‐roads‐4‐pg.pdf Effectiveness: highly effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability Cost: high Add or expand frontage roads:
Strategies: add frontage roads in areas along corridor where there aren't any or expand to be able to handle additional capacity Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity Secondary objective: Economic Competitiveness Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability Cost: moderate
February 2016 A-12
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Add passenger only or truck only restricted lanes: Strategies: separate passenger vehicles from commercial vehicles via the construction of managed lanes that utilize congestion pricing Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity/ Economic Competitiveness Secondary objective: safety Case study sources: http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003‐002048.pdf https://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2011%20Presentations/51A‐SuzannRhodes.pdf http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003‐002048.pdf Effectiveness: somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability, somewhat effective at reducing crash rates Cost: moderate Dedicated truck ramps:
Strategies: separate ramps that are used to give preferential treatment to trucks Primary objective: Freight Mobility and Connectivity/ Economic Competitiveness Secondary objective: safety Case study source: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ramp_mgmt_handbook/manual/manual/5_1.htm Effectiveness: somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability, somewhat effective at reducing crash rates Cost: moderate Increase bridge clearance to 18'6":
Strategies: raise bridge vertical clearance to 18'6" to ensure that oversize vehicles can clear bridge Primary objective: Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: asset management and freight mobility and connectivity Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: highly effective at improving bridge condition and vertical clearance, somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability Cost: high
February 2016 A-13
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
Horizon Strategies
Conversion to heavy truck corridor:
Strategies: construct pavement, bridges, and any other infrastructure to accommodate heavier trucks Primary objective: Freight mobility and connectivity/Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: asset management Case study sources: http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_completed_alameda_factsheet.asp https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/alamedacorridor.html Effectiveness: highly effective at improving pavement condition and bridge condition, somewhat effective at improving freight mobility and travel time reliability Cost: high New freight conveyance technology:
Strategies: freight shuttle, autonomous trucks, truck platooning, etc. Primary objective: Freight mobility and connectivity/Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: safety and asset management Case study sources: http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/PDFs/TruckPlatooning‐TNO.pdf http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougnewcomb/2015/05/08/daimler‐autonomous‐truck‐has‐huge‐ commercial‐implications/ http://www.freightshuttle.com/concept/ Effectiveness: highly effective at improving travel time reliability and freight mobility, somewhat effective at reducing crash rates and improving pavement and bridge conditions Cost: low Conversion to "bridgeless" corridor (no main lane overpasses):
Strategies: remove all bridges crossing the corridor Primary objective: Freight mobility and connectivity/Economic competitiveness Secondary objective: Asset management Case study source: Consultant engineering judgment Effectiveness: highly effective at improving vertical clearance, somewhat effective at improving pavement and bridge condition, somewhat effective at improving travel time reliability Cost: high
February 2016 A-14
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
People Values People are the Department’s most important customer, asset, and resource. The well‐being, safety, and quality of life for Texans and the traveling public are of the utmost concern to the Department. We focus on relationship building, customer service, and partnerships.
Accountability We accept responsibility for our actions and promote open communication and transparency at all times.
Trust We strive to earn and maintain confidence through reliable and ethical decision‐making.
Honesty We conduct ourselves with the highest degree of integrity, respect, and truthfulness.
A forward‐thinking leader delivering mobility, enabling economic opportunity, Vision and enhancing quality of life for all Texans
Mission Work with others to provide safe and reliable transportation solutions for Texas.
February 2016 A-15
I-45 Freight Corridor Plan Final Report
February 2016 A-16