North Dakota Strategic Freight Planning Analysis Phase I: 2006-2008

Home , Dakota Northern Railroad, Montana Highway 16, Port of Los Angeles

Prepared for

North Dakota Department of Transportation

Mark Berwick Mark Lofgren Tamara VanWechel

Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University Fargo, North Dakota

October 2009

Disclaimer

The contents presented in this report are the sole responsibility of the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute and the authors.

North Dakota State University does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender identity, marital status, national origin, public assistance status, sex, sexual orientation, status as a U.S. veteran, race or religion. Direct inquiries to the Vice President for Equity, Diversity and Global Outreach, 205 Old Main, (701)231-7708.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION TO FREIGHT AND THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ...... 1 1.1 The Transportation System ...... 3 1.1.1 Highways ...... 4 1.1.2 Railroads ...... 6 1.1.3 Air 8 1.1.4 Pipelines ...... 9 1.2 Freight Transportation ...... 11 1.3 The Importance of Freight ...... 11 1.4 Transportation Gateways ...... 13 1.5 Characteristics of Freight in North Dakota ...... 16 1.5.1 Clustering of Facilities ...... 16 1.5.2 Dynamics of Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) Movements ...... 17 1.5.3 Primary Transportation Mode ...... 17

2. NORTH DAKOTA FREIGHT MOVEMENTS ...... 19 2.1 North Dakota Freight Generators and Potential Freight Generators ...... 19 2.2 North Dakota Overall Freight Movements: Freight Analysis Framework ...... 22 2.2.1 Air 27 2.2.2 Pipeline ...... 28 2.2.3 Rail ...... 29 2.2.4 Truck ...... 31 2.2.5 Truck and Rail ...... 32 2.2.6 All Modes ...... 32 2.2.7 Air 34 2.2.8 Pipeline ...... 35 2.2.9 Rail ...... 36 2.2.10 Truck ...... 37 2.2.11 Truck and Rail ...... 38 2.2.12 Other ...... 39 2.2.13 All Modes ...... 40 2.3 North Dakota’s Truck Transportation Movements ...... 41 2.3.1 North Dakota Regional Truck Freight ...... 41 2.4 North Dakota’s Railroads ...... 50 2.5 North Dakota’s Elevator System and Agricultural Freight Movements ...... 51 2.5.1 Side Track or Loading Track Capacity ...... 52 2.5.2 Shuttle Train Elevators ...... 52 2.5.3 BNSF Railway Requirements ...... 52 2.5.4 CPR Requirements ...... 52 2.5.5 Spring Load Restrictions ...... 55 2.5.6 Agricultural Movements ...... 56 2.5.7 North Dakota’s Containerized Intermodal Freight ...... 58

3. SAFETY AND SECURITY AND POTENTIAL OBSTACLES TO NORTH DAKOTA FREIGHT MOVEMENTS ...... 61 3.1 Hazardous Freight Generation and Security Requirements ...... 62 3.2 Roles and Responsibilities of Freight Systems Key Players ...... 63

4. CONCLUSIONS ...... 73

APPENDIX A. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... A-1

APPENDIX B. NORTH DAKOTA FREIGHT DATA AND ECONOMIC EMPLOYMENT CHARATERISTICS ...... B-1

APPENDIX C. NORTH DAKOTA – CANADA TRADE DATA ...... C-1

APPENDIX D. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS FREIGHT-RAIL BOTTOM LINE ...... D-1

APPENDIX E. GLOBAL INSIGHT-TRANSEARCH DATABASE INFORMATION ...... E-1

APPENDIX F. INTERMODAL DEFINITION AND STUDY FINDINGS ...... F-1

APPENDIX G: PUBLIC- PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN TRANSPORTATION ...... G-1

APPENDIX H. FREIGHT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK MAPS-TRUCK FLOWS ...... H-1

APPENDIX I. TRUCK TRAVEL SCENARIOS FOR REGIONAL HIGHWAYS (June 2005) ..... I-1

APPENDIX J. MULTISTATE PERMIT AGREEMENTS ...... J-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Freight Transfers Among Modes ...... 2 Table 1.2 North Dakota Railroad System Mileage (2005) ...... 7 Table 1.3 Performance Characteristics of Transportation Modes ...... 15 Table 2.1 North Dakota Trade with Canada in 2006 ...... 23 Table 2.2 North Dakota Shipments by Ton and Value ...... 26 Table 2.3 Top Commodities Originated by Railroads in North Dakota During 2003 ...... 30 Table 2.4 Top Commodities Terminated by Railroads in North Dakota During 2003 ...... 30 Table 2.5 Average Daily Trucks on Identified Highway Segments ...... 47 Table 2.6 North Dakota Railroad System Mileage, 2005 ...... 51 Table 3.1 State DOT Partners for Transportation Security ...... 65 Table 3.2 Functional Annex Chart ...... 68 Table 3.3 Engineering & Public Works Emergency Operations Plan for the City of Fargo ...... 70 Table A.1 Other State Freight Plans Matrix ...... A-3 Table B.1 Existing Freight-Related Data Sources ...... B-1 Table B.2 Industry Gross State Product (Millions of Current Dollars) ...... B-2 Table B.3 Industry Key-Complete Category Names ...... B-5 Table B.4 Total U.S. Exports (Origin of Movement) via North Dakota...... B-6 Table B.5 Exports from North Dakota to Canada: in Thousands of Dollars ...... B-7 Table B.6 North Dakota Counties: Employee and Establishemtn Summary Table by Industry ...... B-17 Table B.7 North Dakota New Wealth Creator Businesses, Number Employed by County and Industry ...... B-20 Table B.8 North Dakota New Wealth Creator Businesses, Number of Establishments by County and Industry ...... B-22 Table B.9 Number of North Dakota Establishments by Major Industry ...... B-24 Table B.10 Number of North Dakota Wholesale Industry Employees by County ...... B-25 Table B.11 Industry Key-Complete Industry Names ...... B-26 Table B.12 North Dakota-Originated Shipment Characteristics: 2002...... B-27 Table B.13 North Dakota-Terminated Shipment Characteristics: 2002 ...... B-28 Table B.14 Shipment Characteristics by Mode of Transportation for North Dakota by Tons and Percent ...... B-30 Table B.15 FAF2 Modal Complete Categories ...... B-33 Table B.16 North Dakota Traffic (1,000 tons) ...... B-33 Table B.17 Complete Category Names for Total Commodities Shipped ...... B-34 Table B.18 Complete Category Names for Out-of-State Commodities Shipped ...... B-35

Table B.19 Complete Category Names for In-State Commodities Shipped ...... B-36 Table C.1 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Trucks into North Dakota (1995-2005) ...... C-2 Table C.2 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Trucks per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005) ...... C-4 Table C.3 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Loaded Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005) ...... C-6 Table C.4 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Loaded Truck Containers per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005)...... C-7 Table C.5 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Empty Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005) ...... C-9 Table C.6 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports Empty Truck Containers per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005) ...... C-10 Table C.7 Train Border Crossings/Entries into North Dakota 1998-2005 ...... C-11 Table C.8 Loaded Rail Container Border Crossings/Entries into North Dakota 1998-2005 ...... C-11 Table C.9 Empty Rail Container Border Crossings/Entries into North Dakota 1998-2005 ...... C-11 Table C.10 North Dakota and Canada Ports Hours of Operation ...... C-15 Table G.1 Examples of Public-Private Projects in the United States, 2004...... G-3 Table G.2 Examples of Current, Multi-faceted Public-Private Partnerships ...... G-4 Table J.1 Maximum Dimension for Western Regional Permitting Envelope Vehicles ...... J-1 Table J.2 Vehicle Weight Table for Western Regional Permitting ...... J-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Hub & Spoke Transportation Example...... 2 Figure 1.2 Highway Performance Classification System ...... 5 Figure 1.3 North Dakota Rail Map ...... 6 Figure 1.4. Map of North Dakota Commercial and General Aviation Airports ...... 8 Figure 1.5 Major Canadian and U.S. Crude Oil Pipelines and Market ...... 10 Figure 1.6 National Natural Gas Pipeline Network...... 10 Figure 1.7 Top 25 Freight Gateways by Value (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006)...... 14 Figure 1.8 Value Per Ton of Products Shipped by Various Modes in the U.S. (1997) ...... 15 Figure 2.1 Manufacturing Density...... 20 Figure 2.2 Value-Added Agriculture Processors...... 20 Figure 2.3 Most Prolific Oil Producing Counties ...... 221 Figure 2.4 Shipments Originated in North Dakota, by Volume ...... 24 Figure 2.5 North Dakota Originated Shipments with Top 5 Trading Partners...... 24 Figure 2.6 Shipments Terminated in North Dakota, by Volume ...... 25 Figure 2.7 North Dakota Terminated Shipments With Top 5 Trading Partners ...... 25 Figure 2.8 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: Air 2002 ...... 27 Figure 2.9 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Air 2002 ...... 278 Figure 2.10 Terminating Points for Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: Pipeline 2002 ...... 29 Figure 2.11 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Pipeline 2002 ...... 29 Figure 2.12 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: Rail 2002 ...... 30 Figure 2.13 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Rail 2002 ...... 31 Figure 2.14 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: Truck 2002 ...... 31 Figure 2.15 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Truck 2002 ...... 32 Figure 2.16 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: All Modes 2002 ...... 33 Figure 2.17 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Air 2002 ...... 33 Figure 2.18 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Air 2002 ...... 34 Figure 2.19 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Air 2002 ...... 34 Figure 2.20 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Pipeline 2002 ...... 35 Figure 2.21 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Pipeline 2002 ...... 35 Figure 2.22 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Rail 2002 ...... 36 Figure 2.23 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Rail 2002 ...... 36 Figure 2.24 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Truck 2002 ...... 37 Figure 2.25 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Truck 2002 ...... 37

Figure 2.26 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Truck, Rail 2002 ...... 38 Figure 2.27 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Truck, Rail 2002 ...... 38 Figure 2.28 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Other 2002 ...... 39 Figure 2.29 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Other 2002 ...... 39 Figure 2.30 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: All Modes 2002 ...... 40 Figure 2.31 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: All Modes 2002 ...... 40 Figure 2.32 Estimated 1998 Average Daily Trucks in the Seven States...... 43 Figure 2.33 Projected 2010 Average Daily Trucks in the Seven States...... 44 Figure 2.34 Projected 2020 Average Daily Trucks in the Seven States...... 45 Figure 2.35 Selected Locations of the Identified Highway Segments for Average Daily Trucks...... 46 Figure 2.36 Total Average Annual Daily Trucks on North Dakota Highways (2007)...... 48 Figure 2.37 Equivalent Single Axle Loads on North Dakota Highways...... 49 Figure 2.38 North Dakota Railroad Map...... 50 Figure 2.39 North Dakota Elevators, No Rail Elevators/No Rail Service...... 53 Figure 2.40 North Dakota Elevators, Single Car Elevator: 1 to 24 Railcars...... 53 Figure 2.41 North Dakota, Multi Car Elevators: 25 to 49 Railcars...... 54 Figure 2.42 North Dakota, Unit Car Elevators: Track Space for 50 to 99 Railcars...... 54 Figure 2.43 North Dakota Elevators, 100 Car Elevators: Track Space for 100+ Railcars...... 55 Figure 2.44 Snapshot of North Dakota Load Restrictions on Interstate, U.S. and State Highways and Elevator Locations ...... 56 Figure 2.45 Rail Share of Grain & Oilseeds Originating in North Dakota by Destination...... 57 Figure 2.46 Percentage of North Dakota Grain & Oilseed Shipments by Destination...... 57 Figure 3.1 Examples of Hazardous Materials Requiring a Placard ...... 63 Figure 3.2 North Dakota DES Coordination and Control Relationships Chart ...... 67 Figure B.1 North Dakota Gross State Product, Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce ...... B-4 Figure B.2 North Dakota Employees by Industry ...... B-8 Figure B.3 Accommodation & Food Service Employees by County ...... B-9 Figure B.4 Construction Employees ...... B-9 Figure B.5 Finance & Insurance Employees ...... B-10 Figure B.6 Forestry, Fishing, Hunting & Agriculture Support Employees ...... B-10 Figure B.7 Health Care & Social Assistance Employees ...... B-11 Figure B.8 Information Employees ...... B-11 Figure B.9 Managers of Companies & Enterprises Employees ...... B-112 Figure B.10 Manufacturing Employees ...... B-12

Figure B.11 Mining Employees ...... B-123 Figure B.12 Professional, Scientific & Technical Employees ...... B-13 Figure B.13 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing Employees ...... B-14 Figure B.14 Retail Trade Employees ...... B-14 Figure B.15 Transportation & Warehousing Employees ...... B-15 Figure B.16 Utilities Employees ...... B-15 Figure B.17 Wholesale Employees ...... B-16 Figure B.18 North Dakota Inbound Shipments by Tons...... B-29 Figure B.19 Shipment Characteristics by Mode of Transportation for North Dakota: 2002 Commodity Flow Survey Tonnage...... B-29 Figure B.20 Destinations of North Dakota-Originated Shipments* ...... B-31 Figure B.21 Origins of North Dakota-Received Shipments* ...... B-31 Figure B.22 North Dakota In-State Shipments by Mode ...... B-32 Figure B.23 North Dakota Out-of-State Shipments by Mode ...... B-32 Figure B.24 North Dakota Top 15 Total Commodities Shipped ...... B-33 Figure B.25 North Dakota 15 Top Out-of-State Commodities Shipped ...... B-34 Figure B.26 North Dakota Top 15 In-State Shipments ...... B-35 Figure B.27 North Dakota International Trade Partners ...... B-36 Figure C.1 Border Crossings/Entries per Year Trucks into North Dakota (1995-2005)...... C-1 Figure C.2 Top Border Crossings by Truck...... C-2 Figure C.3 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports into North Dakota (1995-2005)...... C-3 Figure C.4 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Trucks per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005). ... C-4 Figure C.5 Border Crossings/Entries per Year for Loaded Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005) ...... C-5 Figure C.6 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Loaded Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005) ...... C-6 Figure C.7 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports-Loaded Truck Containers Yearly (2000-2005)...... C-7 Figure C.8 Border Crossings/Entries per Year Empty Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005)...... C-8 Figure C.9 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports into North Dakota-Empty Truck Containers (2000-2005)...... C-9 Figure C.10 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports Empty Truck Containers per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005)...... C-10 Figure C.11 Top 10 Imports to North Dakota from Canada Based on Total Value (2005). Source: U.S. International Trade Commission ...... C-12 Figure C.12 Top 10 Exports to Canada from North Dakota Based on Total Value (2005) ...... C-12

Figure C.13 Manitoba Exports to and Imports from North Dakota 2001-2005 (All Manufacturing Industries) ...... C-13 Figure C.14 Saskatchewan Exports to and Imports from North Dakota 2001-2005 (All Manufacturing Industries) ...... C-13 Figure C.15 Canada Exports to and Imports from North Dakota 2001-2005 (All Manufacturing Industries) ...... C-14 Figure G.1 States with Significant Transportation PPP Authority ...... G-2 Figure H.1 1998 Total Domestic Truck Flows ...... H-1 Figure H.2 1998 Total International Truck Flows ...... H-2 Figure H.3 1998 Combined Domestic and International Flows by Truck ...... H-3 Figure H.4 1998 Movements Across State Borders ...... H-4 Figure I.1 Scenario 1 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-1 Figure I.2 Scenario 2 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-2 Figure I.3 Scenario 3 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-3 Figure I.4 Scenario 4 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-4 Figure I.5 Scenario 5 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-5 Figure I.6 Scenario 6 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-6 Figure I.7 Scenario 7 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-7 Figure I.8 Scenario 8 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-8 Figure I.9 Scenario 9 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-9 Figure I.10 Scenario 10 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-10 Figure I.11 Scenario 11 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-11 Figure I.12 Scenario 12 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-12 Figure I.13 Scenario 13 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)...... I-13 Figure I.14 Permitted Longer Combination Vehicles (LCVs) by State and Truck Configuration...... I-14 Figure J.1 Western Regional Permitting Designated Envelop Vehicle Routes for Participating States .... J-6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study explores freight planning as well as the dynamics of North Dakota’s freight system. A report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) states, ―Improvement in highway-freight carriage is one of the ways that government can make a truly valuable contribution to the efficiency of the American Economy.‖1 This statement pertains to the United States, but is also applicable to the state of North Dakota. The need for freight transportation improvements is critical in today’s thriving marketplace. The first important step is to create a strategic plan.

This study focuses discussion on the definition and characteristics of freight, the importance of freight transportation, and federal freight policies and regulations, and examines freight planning documents from surrounding states and provinces and other state freight plans. In addition, the study analyzes freight flows and volumes, major freight generators, shipper preferences, and modal split of freight shipments. The study also identifies freight corridors at different levels, discusses roles and responsibilities for freight system key players, examines impediments and capacity constraints facing North Dakota’s current freight system, and outlines potential obstacles to North Dakota’s freight movements in regard to safety and security.

The information in this report is Phase I of a three-phase study, which provides for identification and discussion of North Dakota’s direction for state freight planning, important freight gateways, and relationships that are instrumental in the state’s economic productivity.

Significant Findings

Regulatory

 Harmonization in truck size and weight regulations may reduce truck numbers and provide a more efficient highway network serving businesses throughout the region.  Load restrictions are necessary to preserve highway infrastructure during the spring thaw.  As stated by the Central Corridors Freight Committee, ―Only a new and unprecedented level of cooperation between and among public and private sector stakeholders holds the potential for attaining the coordination necessary to achieve such an integrated system.‖

Infrastructure

 The nationwide trend in the movement of freight is expansion at all levels. Freight shipments in the United States have increased from 1993 to 2002 by 45% and tons of freight moved during the same period have increased 18%. Freight shipments are projected to double again from 2002 to 2020.  Facility clustering is occurring for some businesses such as power plants, ethanol plants, and malting plants in North Dakota. Although individually the plants may not be considered freight generators, collectively they have the potential to generate a considerable amount of freight.  An ever-increasing volume of trade is conducted between the region’s states and provinces, and it would be beneficial to explore opportunities to harmonize vehicle size and weight regulations and provide a permitting process that would allow for seamless movements of freight.

1 Capturing the Full Benefits of Freight Transportation Improvements: A Non-Technical Review of Linkages and the Benefit-Cost Analysis Framework. ICF Consulting, HLB Decision Economics, Louis Berger Group. Federal Highway Administration, May 11 2001.

 There are currently seven railroads operating 3,609 miles2 of railroad in North Dakota. Two are Class I carriers, three are regional railroads, and two are local railroads.  Class I railroads currently are investing around $2 billion annually for improvements above and beyond repair and maintenance. This is not sufficient to meet the needs of the freight rail market. The public sector and the private freight transportation community must advance public policy options that improve the capacity, productivity, and security of the freight-rail system as an integral part of the national freight transportation system.

Economy

 The states playing the greatest role in North Dakota commerce are those in close proximity (such as Minnesota, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, and Illinois), but trade spans the entire nation from the West Coast to the East Coast.  A report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) states, ―Improvement in highway-freight carriage is one of the ways that government can make a truly valuable contribution to the efficiency of the American Economy.‖  The industries that are of importance for strategic freight planning include retail trade, manufacturing, wholesale trade, construction, transportation and warehousing, mining and forestry, fishing, hunting and agriculture.

Planning

 Some types of freight movements are difficult to quantify due to confidentiality issues and security concerns.  Except for Minnesota, North Dakota’s bordering states and provinces do not have ―Freight Plans.‖ South Dakota, Montana, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all have some form of freight planning in other planning documents, but not a stand-alone document covering all modes.  Interviews with transportation officials from the different jurisdictions indicate freight planning in their future. Common themes from discussions include lack of resources, definition, and direction.  Existing freight plans commonly address the importance of competitiveness and economic development.  The strategic freight planning process and the plan for North Dakota has potential benefits for multiple stakeholders, including farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, retailers, warehouse operators, truckers, the general public, North Dakota Department of Transportation, and various state and local governmental entities.  Taking a progressive stance in freight movement is a common theme in various corridor studies and freight plans.  All sectors of the system, both public and private, need to collaborate to keep up with economic growth and associated transportation needs.  Freight plans should include guidelines for using benefit-cost analysis when embarking on major infrastructure investments.  Cooperative efforts to build regional coalitions to improve freight transportation should be ongoing.  Various non-proprietary sources provide valuable freight movement data on a larger scale. However, none provide specific, local-road level data that is needed for state transportation planning.

2 Miles of railroad excludes side tracks, crossovers and yard tracks. The term is synonymous with route miles.

 Thirty-five of 50 states have used proprietary freight data developed by Global Insight- TRANSEARCH for planning purposes. Global Insight-TRANSEARCH provides the largest number of samples for truck shipments to the county level and offers a more detailed and scientific approach to freight movement.  Due to methodological survey techniques used to make state-based estimates at the national level, accuracy can be problematic for lower populated states such as North Dakota.  All transportation modes need to be included when considering transportation planning or infrastructure improvements.  Strategic planning is an important first step in bringing together stakeholders with a vested interest in freight transportation.  A new emphasis is evolving in transportation safety and security. Unpredictable events may interrupt freight movements.  Many organizations play a role in transportation related emergencies. Some of these agencies include federal agencies such as the Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security; state agencies such as highway patrol, departments of transportation, health and emergency services; and local agencies such as fire departments, ambulance services, law enforcement, and public works.

Freight Characteristics

 Unique features of North Dakota freight movement include the seasonal movements of agriculture and other products. Seasonal freight movements to and from grain elevators, processing plants, and fertilizer plants may not meet the threshold of year-round freight generators, but there are many within North Dakota that are seasonal freight generators of more than 25 trucks per day.  Truck transportation plays a vital economic role and is the first and last mode for moving commodities, raw materials, and finished goods.  It is estimated that for every eight truckloads of incoming Less Than Truck Load (LTL) freight, about one is shipped out. The imbalance leaves regional and local LTL transportation companies with the decision of whether to run empty, which is expensive, or try to hire independent truckers to bring the freight to their terminals.  Lack of intermodal rail service provides for expensive delivery of LTL freight to rural areas in North Dakota. Although entities such as FedEx and UPS do provide service to rural areas, it may not be the same service as in metro areas.  Public meetings and coordinated advisory or steering committees are beneficial in transportation planning in order to identify critical issues as well as maximize benefits from project outcomes.  Truck transportation is the primary mode of transportation for most products moving into, out of, through, and within the state.  According to the 2002 FAF2 data, North Dakota originated approximately 25% more tons of freight than it terminated.  All agricultural production, including grains, sugar beets, potatoes, and animals, all take that first move to market by truck.  Hazardous freight is frequently generated throughout North Dakota as many farming, mining, and manufacturing activities may require the use of various types of fertilizers, fuel, and chemicals.

BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND USE

The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) recognizes that the North Dakota freight system is a complex system extending well beyond the borders of the state and includes air, rail, highway, water, and pipeline. Constraints, including highway, rail, and seaport and airport congestion, rail and motor carrier equipment availability, fuel availability and cost, and other factors, all affect the freight system’s performance within North Dakota.

Background

An efficient transportation system is the backbone of all economic productivity that occurs in a city, county, state, and region. Without efficient transportation, the economic viability of North Dakota may become stagnant compared to other Midwestern states. Several adjacent states and provinces are conducting various forms of freight planning. It has been recognized at all government levels that transportation of freight is an essential ingredient for enhancing rural economies and making the global marketplace accessible to producers, manufacturers, and value added processors. This study addresses the first of three phases in the freight planning analysis process for North Dakota. The freight analysis process will be conducted in two phases. Phase I will examine freight flows, known freight capacity issues, and impediments and identify major freight generators. Phase I will also identify key freight system players and their roles and responsibilities. Phase II will examine the current freight system, economic trends, and issues affecting freight movements and identify projected capacity shortfalls and freight impediments. Phase III will incorporate the information and findings developed in the first two phases of the Biennial Strategic Transportation Analysis to create a state freight plan. Planning and improvements will be developed along with recommendations for regulatory changes and multi-state proposals.

In 2002, NDDOT published a statewide strategic transportation plan called TransAction, which contained several initiatives referring to freight transportation and action items to evaluate the different initiatives. The plan=s initiatives describe areas of need for North Dakota=s transportation infrastructure and impediments that exist in the system. NDDOT has since developed the next phase for strategic transportation planning called TransAction II. Like TransAction, TransAction II has been developed to further focus resources and meet the evolving infrastructure and service needs and demands of the state’s residents and businesses. The development of TransAction II represents the next step toward the ongoing processes involved in transportation planning. Several of the initiatives in TransAction II have been combined to reflect the natural link between the initiatives and priorities developed in TransAction. TransAction II provides broad and strategic direction for long range (20 year) transportation planning. It emphasizes the importance of meaningfully engaging the public and private sectors, all levels of government, and all modes of transportation.

Objective

The objective of Phase I is to gather information on freight movements leaving, entering, and circulating within, and moving through the state. This movement data include quantity and value, origins and destinations along with flow through, seasonality, shipper preferences and problems, freight modal splits, corridor identification, identification of the roles and responsibilities of the freight system’s key players and current impediments, and capacity constraints. Phase I is the focus of this study and is outlined in the executive summary. Phases II and III will build on Phase I findings and go beyond freight to include an analysis of economic trends and the relationship of these trends to the performance of the future freight system. The findings will also be used to create a Strategic Freight Plan.

Purpose

The Strategic Freight Plan has a three-fold purpose. First, the plan will be used to develop an understanding of North Dakota’s freight system and how it integrates with the regional, national, and global freight systems. This analysis will also include defining the freight system’s major players and their roles and responsibilities. Second, the plan will present a picture of North Dakota’s current freight system and its infrastructure, regulatory environment, and safety/security. Third, the plan will identify and recommend changes and improvements to maintain a safe, secure, and efficient future freight system.

Scope

The Strategic Freight Plan will focus on North Dakota’s freight system and its integration with the regional, national, and global freight systems.

Use

The Strategic Freight Plan will be used to recommend changes and improvements to maintain safe, secure, and efficient future freight movements. These recommendations will include infrastructure improvements, legislative proposals, and regulatory changes.

1. INTRODUCTION TO FREIGHT AND THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Defining freight should be relatively simple; however, freight and freight transportation is a complex chain of local, interregional and/or international movements of commodities, and manufactured and consumer goods.3 This complex chain is difficult to analyze, study, and/or model because of different modal possibilities, characteristics of the goods being shipped, and data availability and differences. It is important for NDDOT to have the ability to analyze freight movements as they have the greatest impact on the highway system.

Freight is carried by an extensive system of roads, railroads, waterways, pipelines, and, to some extent, air. Freight movements have increased rapidly over the last 25 years with the advent of containerized freight and the rapid expansion of capacity and efficiency of ocean vessels. Distance is less of a barrier as ships become larger and faster and intermodal freight moves efficiently from the point of origin to final destination. Highway, rail, and ocean traffic are synchronized to bring all types of products long distances at relatively reasonable cost.

Freight may take on many different characteristics. For example, there is bulk grain, which may be loaded in unit trains in large volumes, while other grains may be shipped in much smaller quantities because of characteristics or traits desired by the consumer. Many times these smaller lots are shipped by truck or single rail car or in a container. Processors may desire these smaller lots because of special needs or an inability to handle large quantities. Freight other than grain may also have characteristics that fit particular transportation modes, and many times freight transfers between modes only happen with particular kinds of freight. Freight may be bulk, non-bulk, liquid, large or small machinery, perishable or non-perishable, packages, consumer goods, frozen, time-sensitive, and other variations. Freight may be transferred between modes, while some freight transfers cannot happen or are not logical. Table 1.1 shows freight transfers between modes that occur regularly. For instance, it is not likely that transfers would occur between air and rail or air and pipeline.4 The transfers between air and rail are infrequent. Small package delivery of non-time-sensitive material may travel by rail as TOFC/COFC (trailer on flatcar/container on flatcar). United Parcel Service (UPS), the United States. Postal Service (USPS), and other small package delivery companies use rail for long distance movements of parcels that are less time sensitive.

3 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000 The definition of freight includes; 1. Goods carried by a vessel or vehicle, especially by a commercial carrier; cargo. 2. A burden; a load. 3a. Commercial transportation of goods. b. The charge for transporting goods. Also called freightage. 4. A railway train carrying goods only 4 Most pipelines are used for transfer of petroleum products, natural gas, or water. All types of petroleum products move in pipeline and there is a large pipeline network that reaches across the entire U.S. and extends into Canada and Mexico. The petroleum pipeline industry uses water to separate product and bio-fuels, especially alcohol that could co-mingle with water; possible contamination of petroleum and other products exists.

Table 1.1 Freight Transfers Among Modes Air Motor Rail Water Pipeline Carrier Air Motor Carrier Rail Water Pipeline

The greatest impact on transportation infrastructure is by far freight. Highway freight is transported in large trucks, and each truck does some incremental damage to the roadway. However, pavement damage is minimized when a truck has the proper number of axles, axle spacing, and axle loading. NDDOT attempts to estimate truck volumes in order to build and maintain adequate infrastructure. Most, if not all, state DOTs define businesses that create some level of truck traffic as freight generators.5

The different modes of transportation have characteristics that align themselves with types of freight or length of haul and/or the final destination. The five main modes of freight transportation are truck/motor carrier/highway, rail/railroad, ship or barge/waterway, airplane/air, and pipeline, and it is common for freight to move by more than one mode or multiple modes. An example is moving grain from the farm to the elevator by truck/highway and loading the train/railroad and transporting by ship to a seaport and on to a foreign port where it is offloaded onto a train or truck and moved to a terminal and/or the final destination for milling and consumption. This system is an example of the hub-and-spoke transportation system that has become popular with the advent of deregulation of all modes. The best example of the hub-and-spoke transportation system is in the airline industry. Here, feeder airlines bring passengers to a large hub where they are boarded to link to their final destination. The railroads, trucking industry, pipeline industry, and water carriers all use this principal in one form or another.

5 ND Century Code 11-33-18. Power of board of county commissioners to issue permits-notification of the Director of the Department of Transportation-Power of board to appropriate money. 2. If a board of county commissioners provides for the issuance of permits, the board shall require the applicant to state whether the structure is reasonably anticipated to have a significant impact on the transportation system. A structure is deemed to have significant impact on the transportation system if, over a period of one year, it will have an average daily usage of at least 25 vehicles whose gross weight exceeds 60,000 lb. (27215.54 kilograms). The board shall require that, if the structure will have a significant impact on the transportation system, the Director of the Department of Transportation be notified and be given opportunity to comment on the application. However, approval of the director of the Department of Transportation of the proposed structure is not required.

SPOKE

HUB

SPOKE SPOKE

SPOKE

HUB Port

SPOKE SPOKE

SPOKE

Figure 1.1 Hub & Spoke Transportation Example

Deregulation of the rail industry allowed railroads to abandon track and routes that were unprofitable, allowing them to focus on long distance hauling, increasing their return on investment through better equipment utilization and less maintenance of low volume trackage. The Class I railroads’ desire is to ―hook and haul‖ from origin to destination and have the trucks, shortline railroads, and in some cases, their own branchlines do the gathering and consolidating. The Class I railroads make this work for many different kinds of freight.

Deregulation in the trucking industry allowed the entry of independent truckers and changed the industry. Independent and owner/operators provide all types of freight services at competitive rates and also do consolidating for larger carriers.

1.1 The Transportation System

Freight transportation and logistics provide for the efficient movement of goods and is the key to the economic health of our state, region, and nation. For North Dakota, highway, pipeline, and rail transportation are the main modes utilized as the state is land locked with no direct access to water transportation. For some businesses, air freight is very important. The closest seaport is at Duluth, Minnesota, which provides access to the eastern seaports and areas beyond.

The transportation system consists of roads and highways, railroads, pipelines, and airports. North Dakota is crossed by three congressionally designated High Priority corridors, several other highway routes, three main rail routes, and national and international pipeline connections that connect North Dakota with the rest of the country and the world. The three congressional designated highway corridors include the I-35 corridor6, the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway,7 and the Central North American Trade Corridor.8 Even

6 The Interstate Route 35 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to Wichita, Kansas, to Kansas City, Kansas/ Missouri, to Des Moines, Iowa, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Duluth, Minnesota, including I-

3 though these three routes are nationally designated corridors, many other highways play a major role in transporting freight into, out of, through, and within North Dakota.

1.1.1 Highways

Two interstates cross through the state. They are I-29, which is part of Congressional Corridor 23 and runs in a north-south direction on the eastern edge of the state, and I-94 traverses the state east-west connecting the West Coast to points east including the Twin Cities and Chicago. U.S. highway 2 is an important east/west route that parallels I-94 and the Canadian border. Highway 2 is a 4-lane roadway from the eastern border of North Dakota to Williston located on the western edge of the state. U.S. 83 and 85, both with federally designated corridor status, are north/south routes. Highway 83 is a north/south route located near the geographic center of North Dakota. Highway 85 skirts the west side of the state and has a federal corridor designation as the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway; it provides connectivity from Canada to other federally designated north-south corridors serving the increased transportation demands brought about by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These north/south highways have become increasingly important, connecting the Great Plains region with Canada and Mexico. Highway 52 provides access from Canada’s western provinces and serves the trucking industry, allowing diagonal travel through North Dakota to eastern locations in the United States.

In 2002, NDDOT embarked on classifying its highway system with the goal of better management for maintenance and upgrading. Like many states, prior to a hierarchical classification system, roadways were upgraded or maintained based on time. Prior to the Highway Performance Classification System (HPCS), resource allocation may have been less than optimal. 9

29 between Kansas City and the Canadian border and the connection from Wichita, Kansas, to Sioux City, Iowa, which includes I-135 from Wichita, Kansas to Salina, Kansas, United States Route 81 from Salina, Kansas, to Norfolk, Nebraska, Nebraska State Route 35 from Norfolk, Nebraska, to South Sioux City, Nebraska, and the connection to I-29 in Sioux City, Iowa. 7 The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway from Rapid City, South Dakota, north on United States Route 85 to Williston, North Dakota, west on United States Route 2 to Culbertson, Montana, and north on Montana Highway 16 to the international border with Canada at the port of Raymond, Montana. 8 The Central North American Trade Corridor from the border between North Dakota and South Dakota, north on United States Route 83 through Bismarck and Minot, North Dakota, to the international border with Canada.

9 The HPCS includes separate investment strategies and performance guidelines for District Corridor mileage that is on the National Highway System. The National Highway System includes160,000 miles (256,000 kilometers) of roadway important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. The National Highway System (NHS) includes the following subsystems of roadways (note that a specific highway route may be on more than one subsystem):  Interstate: The Eisenhower Interstate System of highways retains its separate identity within the NHS.  Other Principal Arterials: These are highways in rural and urban areas which provide access between an arterial and a major port, airport, public transportation facility, or other intermodal transportation facility.  Strategic Highway Network(STRAHNET): This is a network of highways which are important to the United States' strategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity and emergency capabilities for defense purposes.  Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors: These are highways which provide access between major military installations and highways which are part of the Strategic Highway Network.  Intermodal Connectors: These highways provide access between major intermodal facilities and the other four subsystems making up the National Highway System. A listing of all official NHS Intermodal Connectors is available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/intermodalconnectors/index.html The National Highway System (NHS) includes the Interstate Highway System as well as other roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. The NHS was developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in cooperation with the states, local officials, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

The HPCS has five levels based on traffic volume, capacity, safety, reliability, travel speeds, and connectivity of major traffic generators. The five levels are the Interstate System, Interregional System, State Corridor, District Corridor, and District Collector. Particularly, interstate and interregional systems and state corridors play an important role for efficient freight movement and a competitive regional economy largely due to traffic volumes (Figure 1.2). An efficient interstate, interregional, and state corridors system can shorten freight travel time and strengthen the regional economy. According to the description of the HPCS, both interstate and interregional systems maintain a high degree of reliability and mobility. These systems support international, national, regional and statewide trade, and economic activity. They generally serve long-distance, interstate and intrastate traffic for freight movement.

Figure 1.2 Highway Performance Classification System

NDDOT established the goal of seasonally unrestricted (restricted by legal load) and height restriction free to 16 feet on the interstate, interregional, and state corridor systems. This allows efficient freight flow on North Dakota highways. According to the 2006 HPCS report, the system consists of 8,411.6 RM (roadway miles). The eight designated highway districts and their respective roadway miles are: Bismarck 1,383.9 RM, Minot 1,142.2 RM, Devils Lake 1,136.3 RM, Valley City 1,078.4 RM, Dickinson 984.1 RM, Grand Forks 928.5 RM, Fargo 878.4 RM, and Williston 879.8 RM. The Interstate consists of 1,141.8 RM or 13.6% of the state highway network. Rural Interstate accounts for 1,023.1 RM or 89.6% of the interstate in North Dakota, and the remainder is urban.

Interregional corridors account for 1,829.8 RM, or 21.8% of the state highway network. The rural Interregional corridors account for 1,589.9 RM or 86.9% and urban interregional corridors account for 239.8 RM or 13.1%.

There are 1,402.1 RM of state corridors on the state highway network, making up 16.7% of the total network. Rural state corridors make up 1,375.2 RM, or 98.1%. Urban state corridors account for 26.9 RM, or 1.9%.

District corridors are the largest HPCS category with 2,568.7 RM, or 30.6% of the state highway network. Less than 1% of the District Corridors are located in urban areas.

District collectors represent 17.4%, or 1,469.2 RM, of the state highway system. Less than 1% of the district collectors are in urban areas.

The above dialogue includes state highways and their classifications. These freight movements that originate and terminate at North Dakota businesses, farms, and residents are also moving on county, city, and township roads. Within North Dakota, there are 3,860 miles of city streets, 19,043 miles of county roads, and 56,509 miles of township roads. The county and township roads are the origin for the farm products produced in North Dakota. There are also 19,827 miles of trails which follow section and township lines and, in some cases, provide access to land not accessible by any other roadway.

1.1.2 Railroads

Today in North Dakota there are seven railroad companies operating 3,609 miles of railroad. There are two Class I, three regional, and two local railroad companies. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) has a classification system that considers both annual revenue and miles of track. AAR classifies railroads as Class I, Regional Railroad and Local Railroad. The seven railroads operating in North Dakota, with their classification, are named in Table 1.2.

Figure 1.3 North Dakota Rail Map

BNSF (BNSF Railway) and CPR (Canadian Pacific Railway) are Class I railroads by AAR (American Association of Railroads) classification standards. The DMVW (Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western Railroad), the NPR (Northern Plains Railroad), and the RRVW (Red River Valley & Western Railroad) are defined as regional railroads 10 by AAR classification standards because they operate more than 350 miles of track. The Yellowstone Valley Railroad (YSVR) and Dakota Northern Railroad (DNRR) are both local railroads. Table 1.2 lists the miles of main line and branch line track in North Dakota by operating railroad. BNSF miles of rail are about 62% main line, while CPR’s rail is about 79% main line. The Class I carriers operate 62% of the total track mileage in North Dakota.

Table 1.2 North Dakota Railroad System Mileage (2005)11 Total Miles in Railroad Main line Branch Line North Dakota BNSF Railway (BNSF) 1,107 683 1,790 Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) 353 92 445 Red River Valley & Western Railroad - 428 428 (RRVW) Northern Plains Railroad (NP) - 436 436 Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western Railroad - 431 431 (DMVW) Yellowstone Valley Railroad (YSVR) - 9 9 Dakota Northern Railroad (DNRR) - 70 70 TOTAL 1,460 2,149 3,609

BNSF Railway has two main lines that move through the state. The northern line is a designated COFC/TOFC (container on flatcar/trailer on flatcar) intermodal route and moves consumer goods from the West Coast to Chicago. Goods moving from there interchange with eastern railroads, such as the Union Pacific, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Canadian National or Kansas City Southern, for connections to the eastern United States. The rail terminals in Chicago provide for transload, car switching among railroads and distribution, and termination of much of the freight imported from sea ports. Approximately 54 trains a day move across the northern BNSF line that runs through North Dakota. The southern BNSF Railway route is an east/west route and parallels I-94, serving the coal industry of North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. The line serves Dickinson and Bismarck/Mandan and merges with the BNSF’s northern line west of Casselton. Over 20 trains a day move on the southern BNSF Railway line. Both lines also serve the grain industry and other general freight movements. The principal commodity handled by BNSF as it moves to and through North Dakota are coal (45%), farm products (25%), and food products (11%).12

The Canadian Pacific Railway also serves the state, and its main line parallels the Highway 52 corridor as it passes thru Minot to Valley City and exits into South Dakota and on to Minnesota. It is estimated that an average of six CPR trains cross though North Dakota from Canada to South Dakota. The principal commodities handled by CPR in North Dakota in 2004 were farm products (65%) and food products (19%).13

10 A regional railroad is defined by the Association of American Railroads as a company that operates 350 miles of railroad and/or earns $40 million in annual revenues. Mileage is based on total system miles, which may include track in more than one state. A local railroad is one that falls below regional railroad criteria. 11 Source: North Dakota Public Service Commission, December 2005, and website information 12 North Dakota Rail Plan, 2007. 13 North Dakota Rail Plan, 2007.

Four short lines provide localized freight service and exchange freight with the state’s Class I railroads. The RRVW (Red River Valley and Western), DMVW (Dakota Missouri Valley and Western Railroad), NP (Northern Plains), and DNRR (Dakota Northern Railroad do most of the gathering and connect with the Class I railroads.

1.1.3 Air

North Dakota has eight commercial service airports located in Fargo, Grand Forks, Devils Lake, Jamestown, Minot, Bismarck, Williston, and Dickinson. According to the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission, the Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, and Minot airports generate approximately 10,000 tons of air freight annually. The major air cargo carriers that operate within North Dakota airspace include DHL, Federal Express (FedEx), United Parcel Service (UPS), and the United States Postal Service (USPS). Cargo that is conducive to air is usually higher value, smaller, and time-sensitive. UPS flies freight to all eight commercial airports, while Fed-Ex and DHL rely on ground delivery of packages from the major airports in North Dakota. Figure 1.4 provides the locations of the eight commercial and 82 general aviation airports.

Figure 1.4 Map of North Dakota Commercial and General Aviation Airports (Source: North Dakota Aeronautics Commission)

The North Dakota Aeronautics Commission conducts updates to a study titled an ―Economic Impact of Aviation in North Dakota,‖ showing the economic impact of aviation on North Dakota’s economy every five years. The objectives of the study are to determine the impacts of aviation in North Dakota in the following areas:

 Commercial service airlines  Concessions operating at North Dakota airports  Government/military operations located at North Dakota airports

 Air freight handling  Other miscellaneous airport tenants  General aviation managements on 82 general aviation airports in North Dakota  Aerial agricultural sprayers  Fixed based operators  Travel agencies  Hotels/Motels  Air travel visitors to North Dakota

A report and presentation prepared by Flint Communications examines the diversification and growth of the industry. According to the study, aviation expenditures in North Dakota totaled nearly $1.2 billion and provided 10,902 jobs in 2004. The overall economic impact since 1994 includes a 104 percent increase in expenditures and a 25% increase in jobs in North Dakota. Air freight expenditures totaled over $25.3 million and provided 560 jobs. The resulting economic impact from air freight expenditures increased 21% for North Dakota from 1994 to 2004.

1.1.4 Pipelines

Pipelines move oil, distillates, and natural gas into, out of, within, and through North Dakota. Since the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, petroleum pipeline operations information has been highly restricted from public access. Throughout North Dakota there are water, gas and oil pipelines. There is a significant fresh water system that brings quality water to rural areas. The most extensive system is in southwestern North Dakota where water is piped from the Missouri River. Prior to the pipeline, the citizens struggled to find quality water and, in some cases, the water quality was blamed for health problems.

Within the oilfields of North Dakota exists a maze of pipelines moving oil, gas, and saltwater. In established oilfields, pipelines are used as the gathering system for longer distance movements to refineries. Pipelines are also preferred to move the waste product saltwater to saltwater disposal wells. Companies with oil and gas production desire to minimize transportation costs for all areas of oil and gas production. Pipelines are expensive, therefore careful consideration about the volume, longevity and return are all considered before the onset of a particular pipeline project.

When possible, oil companies prefer to use pipelines to move product as it is usually less expensive, removes the liability of transporting on a public roadway, and reliable.

An extensive network of natural gas pipelines also exists as public utilities use pipelines almost exclusively in moving gas from refinery to final consumer. These pipelines extend into cities and communities and eventually to individual houses.

The major freight moving pipelines are for oil products and natural gas. There is an extensive localized network of pipelines that move oil and gas short distances either to another pipeline or tank farm where oil is then transported to a pipeline and transfer station.

Figure 1.5 Major Canadian and U.S. Crude Oil Pipelines and Markets14

Figure 1.6 National Natural Gas Pipeline Network

14http://www.neb.gc.ca/energy/EnergyReports/EMAOilSandsOpportunitiesChallenges2015_2006/EMAOilSandsOp portunities2015Canada2006_e.pdf

Figures 1.5 and 1.6 show oil and natural gas pipelines that pass through North Dakota. Additional pipelines are being proposed to bring more Canadian oil and gas through North Dakota to U.S. refineries. Refined natural gas for consumption is also piped to and through many communities for businesses and residents. This network is maintained by utility companies throughout North Dakota.

Another pipeline movement in North Dakota is salt water, which is a by-product of oil and gas production activities. Most of this saltwater is injected back into salt water disposal wells. This water is also brought to disposal wells by truck and some are freight destinations.

1.2 Freight Transportation

The ―for-hire‖ freight transportation bill15 in 2002 accounted for 5.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and adding private carriage,16 the total dollar figure is some $660 billion or 6.4% of GDP.17 Between 1980 and 2003, road miles increased a modest 3% while vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by 89%. Railroad miles dropped over 20%, while rail shipments (measured in ton-miles) increased by 69%.18

Even though truck miles have increased, the percentage of the total VMT remained unchanged from 1980 to 2003. The truck fleet has changed as growth in combination tractor trailers increased by some 59% and single-units increased by 30%. Trucks between 60,000 and 80,000 lb. form the largest category in both numbers of trucks and VMT. Length regulations for tractor trailer units have relaxed in some parts of the country. States and the federal government do have length regulations, and 29 states have length regulations on the National Network.19 North Dakota allows a 53-foot trailer on the National Network and provides permits for much longer vehicles.

1.3 The Importance of Freight

The local, regional, and national economies are all directly dependent on freight transportation. Without reliable, cost effective freight transportation, much of the nation’s economic productivity would dramatically decline. The performance of the freight transportation system is directly related to the costs of goods and services and provides access to global markets. A reliable, cost effective transportation system provides the means for increases in the standard of living. Transportation is another input in the production process. Raw materials are transported to the factory and finished goods to the final consumer. If the cost and reliability of the transportation system changes, it can have a major impact on business and the economy. Improvements to transportation infrastructure enhance movements of freight and may increase productivity. Productivity is the main determinant in changes in the standard of living and, as productivity increases or decreases, so does the standard of living. Productivity gains provide more or better goods and services using the same limited resources available.20

15 Dollars collected by transportation companies for shipments including trucking companies, pipelines, railroads, air carriers, and water carriers. 16 Private Carriage or carrier is a transportation related activity by a company where the primary business is not transportation. 17 Cass/ProLogis, 14th Annual State of Logistics Report, June 2, 2003. 18 http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/05factsfigures/pdf/chap3.pdf 19 23 CFR Part 658-Truck Size and Weight, Route Designations-Length, Width and Weight Limitations. A national network of highways available to vehicles authorized by provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) as amended, and to prescribe to national policies that govern truck and bus size and weight. 20 Ostria Sergio J., ICF Consulting, ―2010 and Beyond: A Vision of America’s Transportation Future.‖

Transportation as an input also allows for trade-offs or substitution. As transportation becomes relatively less expensive, it may be traded for warehousing and/or inventory resulting in firms being able to provide more output for the same level of input.

As congestion increases on the national highways the freight system will naturally be affected. In 2000, the freight system moved well over 14 billion tons of goods. Increased congestion on the nation’s roadways threatens this now efficient, effective movement of freight. Even though congestion is a relatively small problem in North Dakota, it does affect products transported to and from the state. It is estimated that the current delay in the nation’s largest 75 cities costs the economy some $70 billion annually.21

Congestion also exists at the ports, and in 2001, 25% of the top U.S. ports reported unacceptable flow conditions. Compounding this problem is the lack of available space for expansion. Even though many ports recognize the problem of congestion they are powerless or see no avenue to expand. Other factors exacerbating the port problems would include environmental concerns over dredging to increase draft and increased traffic congestion on already clogged highways in most urban areas.

The nation’s railroads are not immune to congestion. The 140,000 mile network of rail carrying the nation’s freight suffers from congestion, especially in port cities such as Los Angeles or Seattle/Tacoma. A 2008 article by Associated Press Writer Michael Tarm, ―US Freight Rail Congestions,‖ points out that the system was not keeping up with the present freight demand. The first quarter of 2008 with a soft economy saw rail freight demand dip by 3%. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicts rail freight demand will double over the next 25 years.

The problem with the interconnectivity of rail is that a train stopped in Chicago can force other trains to stop or slow as far away as Los Angeles or Baltimore.22 The previous congestion scenario will have an adverse affect on shippers nationwide including North Dakota. Congestion in the ports or in terminals will constrain freight shipments from rural areas and delay inputs inbound and products outbound.

A similar problem exists in with air traffic. As airports become more congested, a ripple effect occurs so a problem can delay or ground a flight a thousand miles away. In the airline passenger arena, congestion or weather related events can disrupt the nation’s entire airline system. These disruptions can also affect cargo planes and disrupt businesses using these planes for delivery of time sensitive products or materials.

Pipelines also face congestion issues, especially in finding capacity for crude from western North Dakota. These issue have been somewhat mitigated, however, with more oil wells coming on line, the pipeline system will need to be expanded to handle the increased production as this crude moves to areas with refining capacity.

These problems provide a rather bleak picture for the freight transportation industry if the predictions of increased freight come to be. Predictions of the doubling of freight in the next 20 years along with the problems already existing in the transportation sector should help sell the idea that investment is greatly needed to increase productivity in transportation. Without massive investment and technological improvement, the United States and many industrialized nations of the world may see a slowing of improvements in the standard of living.

21 General Accounting Office, ―Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning and Financing Limitations,‖ December 2003. 22 Tarm, Michael. AP IMPACT: ―U.S. Freight Rail Congestion a Concern,‖ 2008.

Numerous studies have predicted growth in the demand for freight transportation. The ICF consulting group, in their document, ―21st Century Freight Mobility,‖ estimated growth from 2000 to 2020 as follows:  Trucking = 2.5% annually,  Rail = 2% annually,  Barge = 0.70% annually, and  Air freight = 4% annually.

These numbers will have a dramatic affect on the infrastructure and without technological innovation the transportation system will struggle to keep pace. Rail and barge networks are difficult and costly to change.

ICF Consulting, in their report, ―2010and Beyond: A Vision of America’s Transportation Future,‖ provided possible policy responses to address the looming freight crisis.

1. Address major capacity issues and try to alleviate freight bottlenecks and accelerate development of projects that enhance the performance of the freight system with the development and implementation of a ―National Strategic Freight Transportation Investment Program.‖ 2. Address the need for meaningful freight planning at the state and local levels, and consideration should be given to development and implementation of an ―Innovations Program for State and Local Freight Transportation Decision-Making.‖ 3. Address current lack of national attention and/or focus on port issues and planning as well as consideration of changing trade patterns. ―Implementation of a National Harbor Improvement Program.‖

Over the past 30 years, the GDP attributed to international trade has grown from 10% to over 30%. This has increased the demand for international transportation, which in some cases resulted in a strain on the system especially at freight/trade gateways.23 Along with this increased international trade, the business community has been focused on efficiency through changes in logistics and supply chain management. Logistics models such as just-in-time, reduced inventory, and inventory in transit have put additional strain on the freight system. Our current freight system wasn’t designed to handle these logistical changes. As a result these changes deteriorate the performance of the freight system through disruptions and delays which, in turn, cause a decrease in economic performance.

1.4 Transportation Gateways

Freight and/or trade gateways provide the avenue for freight to be transported to the final destination. Most freight moving long distances is moved through a terminal to be switched or sorted, and many of those terminals are classified as freight gateways. The intermodal facilities in Chicago provide examples of freight gateways for international and domestic shipments. Other examples of high volume ports are airports and rail terminals. The U.S. DOT’s report on transportation gateways focused on the international trade portion of freight and/or trade gateways. They included sea ports, international airports, and land gateways (border crossings) that are gateways for U.S. trade. However, many terminals and airports serve as freight gateways for U.S. origins and destinations. This is especially true for rural areas where small shipments are sent to larger terminals or airports and consolidated with other freight with the same

23 A freight gateway is a geographic location where the consolidation of goods or products to fill trains, planes, or ships for long distance moves occurs. A freight gateway can also be a trade gateway in which products are consolidated for international trade and moved by all modes.

13 destination. This is a hub and spoke type system for moving freight and is efficient in gathering and distributing freight.

Figure 1.7 Top 25 Freight Gateways by Value (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006)24

The different modes that move goods include waterways, highway, railroads, air, and pipeline. Characteristics of different products lend themselves for shipment by the different modes. Most low- value, high volume products are moved by ship, train, and/or truck. Low volume, high-value products may lend themselves to move by plane. Petroleum and natural gas products primarily move through pipelines.

Ballou (1999) characterizes U.S. transportation modes by their performance characteristics, as shown in Table 1.3. As his characterization shows, truck and air tend to be premium forms of transportation when compared to rail or water in terms of delivery speed, reliability, and security. These modes offer faster, more reliable transit times, and increased security. When product values are high, the increased inventory costs and reduced revenues tend to be high enough to offset the increased transportation charges associated with these premium transportation modes.

24 An important Gateway for North Dakota is the Pacific Northwest which provides a link to Asia and other foreign destinations for agricultural commodities.

Table 1.3 Performance Characteristics of Transportation Modes Performance Characteristics of Transportation Modes Cost Avg. Delivery Absolute Delivery Time Loss and Damage Mode (1=Low) Time (1=Fast) Variability (1=Least) (1=Least) Rail 3 3 4 5 Truck 4 2 3 4 Water 1 5 5 2 Pipeline 2 4 2 1 Air 5 1 1 3 Source: Ballou, Ronald H. Business Logistics Management, 4th Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.

While theories suggest that more valuable products should be shipped by premium forms of transportation, it is useful to examine actual United States shipments to see if this is the case. Figure 1.8 shows the value per ton of products shipped by various modes in the U.S. in 1997, confirming the belief that more valuable products are likely to move by premium forms of transportation. As the figure shows, air and parcel service are only used for the most valuable products. For-hire truck and truck-rail combinations are used for products with average values per ton between $638 and $1,395, and rail/pipeline/water are used for products with low values and are better suited for liquids or gaseous products.

$60,000

$51,187 $50,000

$40,000 $36,131

$30,000 Value per Ton per Value $20,000

$10,000

$1,395 $853 $638 $492 $248 $206 $184 $163 $135 $22 $0 Air Parcel Truck/Rail Truck - For-HireOther/UnknownTruck - Private Truck/Water Rail Pipeline Other Multi-ModeWater Rail/Water

Figure 1.8 Value Per Ton of Products Shipped by Various Modes in the U.S. (1997)

1.5 Characteristics of Freight in North Dakota

Freight transportation in North Dakota is dominated by highway, rail, and pipeline. Rail traditionally has moved bulk commodities long distances to large export terminals, mills, and processors within the United States. The Class I railroads in search of efficient operations have continued to decrease origin/destination pairs to streamline their operations. The Class I railroads generate the most revenue with long-haul dedicated trains. Even though the Class I railroads still provide single boxcar service, they concentrate on large trains moving long distances.

Trucks are used for gathering of commodities in North Dakota and most times are the first and last mode for either pick-up or delivery. This is for most products, including products that move by rail, pipeline, or air. Agricultural commodities, oil and other petroleum products, household goods, raw materials, and many other products move by truck.

North Dakota is a maze of pipelines that include oil, natural gas, refined petroleum products, salt water as a waste by-product of oil production, and fresh water to rural areas and in cities and municipalities. Considering all movements, pipeline moves more product by value than any other mode.

For year-round agricultural freight movements, the extremes of the seasons along with the agricultural focus of North Dakota need to be considered. The farming year starts in March, weather permitting, and extends into late fall. Harvest generally begins in the middle of August and can extend into November for corn, soybeans, and sugar beets. Even though agricultural commodities are not produced year round, on- farm storage provides a smoothing of shipments.

However, the planting and harvest seasons provide heavy volumes of agricultural freight movements. During the harvest time period, many elevators meet the criteria of freight generators, that is averaging over 25 trucks per day, even though they may not average the 25 daily trucks throughout the year. Fertilizer plants are also freight generators during spring planting and during fall applications of fertilizer. The issue of freight seasonality is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.1, ―North Dakota Freight Generators and Potential Freight Generators.‖

Fertilizer may be considered a hazardous material, especially in some forms. Anhydrous ammonia, which is used extensively for nitrogen applications, is a hazardous material. Transportation of hazardous freight poses safety and security risks to the environment and the public. Further discussion of hazardous freight generation and security requirements are discussed in Section 3.

Another freight issue for North Dakota is the difficulty in quantification of certain freight types. These industry data are constantly changing. The information regarding the location of these facilities and how much freight is generated is unavailable and sporadic. This will be explained in more detail under the ―North Dakota Freight Generators and Potential Freight Generators‖ in Section 3.

1.5.1 Clustering of Facilities

Facility clustering is the constructing and operating of multiple processing plants that provide synergies. Examples of such facilities in North Dakota are businesses such as power, ethanol, and malting plants. Although individually the plants may not be considered freight generators, collectively they have the potential to generate a considerable amount of freight. As of the time of this writing, the proposed Spiritwood Industrial Park east of Jamestown is an example of a joint-venture of facilities that collectively have the potential to become a significant freight generator. According to the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC), it is estimated that the Spiritwood industrial park will have an annual

16 economic impact of about $380 million by 2009. This synergistic approach to processing will increase in the future because of the energy savings, sharing of raw materials, joint by-product development, and other advantages, such as reaching economies of scale for purchasing and transportation along with joint development of products.

1.5.2 Dynamics of Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) Movements

Less-than-truckload (LTL) shipments are common in North Dakota. It is estimated that for every eight truckloads of incoming LTL freight, about one is shipped out. The imbalance leaves regional and local LTL transportation companies with the decision of whether to run empty or dead head,25 which is expensive, or try to hire independent truckers to bring the freight to their terminals. Some of each happens with North Dakota firms. For instance, the large companies may bring freight to large metro areas and then rely on local delivery companies to reach the customer. Limited intermodal rail service in North Dakota results in higher costs for shipping LTL freight both into and out of the state. Although entities such as FedEx and UPS do provide service to rural areas, it may not be as reliable as in metro areas.

1.5.3 Primary Transportation Mode

Aside from bulk and liquid commodities, truck transportation is the primary mode of transportation for most products moving into and out of, through, and within the state. North Dakota’s extensive highway system provides access to cities and towns.

The highway network is also used for many loads moving through the state. U.S. 52 is an important artery for loads entering the state from western Canada and moving to the Midwest, east, southeast, and south central United States and also returning to Canada. Highway and/or trucking capacity is plentiful in most parts of North Dakota, however, as stated earlier, there is evidence that backhaul opportunity is limited for trucks bringing goods to North Dakota.

Trade within the region, especially since the implementation of NAFTA, has increased dramatically.26 Truck transportation plays a vital economic role and is the first and last mode for moving commodities, raw materials, and finished goods. An efficient truck transportation system is crucial for stimulating and sustaining economic growth. The motor carrier industry is ruled by a complex set of regulations for truck size, weight, and safety. The FHWA has the role in deciphering the rules and enforcing compliance by states. Because of ―Grandfather Provisions,‖ regulations on truck size and weight are not consistent among bordering states, and Canadian provinces have their own truck regulations. Further discussion of regional truck movements is discussed in Appendix I.

25 Deadhead in the trucking world is moving from the end of one revenue load to the beginning of another revenue load. In some cases this can be a considerable distance. Anecdotal evidence for motor carriers bringing goods to North Dakota, especially in rural areas, may travel long distances or deadhead long distances to find that next revenue load. 26 Toward New Horizons, Jerry Nagel.

2. NORTH DAKOTA FREIGHT MOVEMENTS

Freight in North Dakota is thought of as bulk agriculture commodities, such as wheat, corn, soybeans, and livestock. However, the real freight story is that a variety of goods move into, through, within, and out of the state, including consumer goods, manufactured goods, value added agriculture products, identity preserved (IP) agriculture products, furniture, and many other products. North Dakota is a landlocked state and a majority of products that originate and terminate in the state must move either by truck, train, or pipeline. Access to freight container shipping is problematic.

2.1 North Dakota Freight Generators and Potential Freight Generators

As corn production moves north and west, the harvest season is longer and there is more intense production, or more bushels harvested per acre. The same is true for adding irrigation. For example, wheat yield on dry land is 30 to 50 bu. per acre, where corn yields 80 to 130 bu. per acre. Under irrigation, wheat yields 50 to 80 bu. per acre and corn 190 to 250 bu. per acre. These crops and irrigation have implications for increased transportation demand.

Some portion of most crops are stored after harvest and transported as demanded or marketed. This is true to an extent for almost all crops. Even though some of the small grains move directly from the farm to the elevator, many times grain is stored on the farm and moved to the elevator through the marketing year. Sugarbeets are stockpiled and moved to the factory as demanded. Potatoes are warehoused or stored until needed.

Harvest generally begins in the middle of August and can extend into November for corn, soybeans, and sugarbeets. Sugarbeet harvest generally begins in September and extends through November, but that is only the beginning. Sugarbeets are then moved from storage piles to factories for processing throughout the winter and into the spring. The sugarbeet piles are certainly freight generators during the time of harvest and then again when hauled to factories. Even though the piles may not generate an annual average of 25 trucks per day, they certainly average this number over the course of the harvest and when the sugarbeets are hauled from the piles to the factory. The same could be true for many fertilizer plants within the state.

Fertilizer plants are freight generators during crop planting in the spring and, for some, during fall fertilizer applications as well. The spring is also the most sensitive time for North Dakota roadways on which load restrictions are enforced. In many cases, local co-op elevators are the suppliers for inputs, such as fertilizer, fuel, and chemicals, which make them freight generators for fertilizer in the spring as well as freight generators for receiving grain during harvest. Another complicating factor for fertilizer is that although many types of fertilizers are not considered hazardous freight in dry form, there are types of fertilizers or chemicals that are hazardous, such as anhydrous ammonia. Transportation of hazardous freight poses certain safety and security risks to the environment and the public. Further discussion of hazardous freight generation and security requirements are discussed in the ―Potential Obstacles to North Dakota Freight Movements‖ section of this document.

Businesses, such as manufacturing facilities and processing plants, are also potential freight generators. The North Dakota Department of Commerce has provided locations of several manufacturing facilities and agricultural processing facilities. These facilities are concentrated in the eastern part of the state and many in urban areas, such as Fargo and Grand Forks, where the combination of consumer goods demand and other activities provide for natural freight generators in many locations of these cities.

Figure 2.1 Manufacturing Density (ND Department of Commerce, 2007)

Figure 2.2 Value-Added Agriculture Processors (ND Department of Commerce, 2007)

As mentioned earlier, Class I railroads have limited origin/destination pairs in order to streamline their operations and increase efficiency. An impact of this change is reflected in increased freight generation on highways. An example of that is at the Ardoch coal storage facility. The railroad previously delivered coal to individual beet processing factories in the Red River Valley. New rail rates strongly encouraged unit train delivery. The number of trucks that this facility generates is estimated at between 85 and 95 per day between August and May. During the remainder of the year, truck numbers are reduced to 13 to 15 per day to the Hillsboro and East Grand Forks, Minnesota, plants.27

Some types of freight movements are very difficult to quantify due to confidentiality issues and security concerns. Businesses are reluctant to reveal data or transportation information because of the perception that information could be obtained by their competitors or some other entity and harm the company in some way.

An example of this is the oil industry. Data on freight generating locations are held closely by the industry. There are petroleum distribution points along pipelines in North Dakota which may be freight generators. There are also points along the crude oil pipelines that are freight generation points, as oil is gathered from wells and put into the pipelines at these locations. Even though these locations are visible from public roadways, they are considered security sensitive. Oil is loaded into pipelines south of Williston at Belfield, Tioga, Killdeer, Grenora, and other locations; all could be considered modal interchange points. Other potential freight generators include the 2006 estimate of 250 saltwater disposal wells located in the western part of the state. These wells serve as waste disposal sites for salt water resulting from oil production, and the number of disposal wells needed increases with oil development. Most oil production in western North Dakota jointly produces saltwater and natural gas. In many instances, the saltwater and natural gas are piped to the saltwater disposal well and the main gas pipeline, respectively. In some instances, the saltwater is trucked to a disposal site, and it is the goal of the producing company to use the most cost effective method of transporting all products.

Oil production is increasing as prices and new technologies have provided producers opportunity for exploiting relatively new exploration and extraction techniques. Oil production increased 37% from 3.29 million barrels in 1999 to 4.51 million barrels in 2007. Even though the most recent play has been the Bakken formation from west of Tioga in Williams county to Stanley and south to Parshall in Mountrail County, Bowman County clearly has had the greatest increase in oil production and some counties have had declines. The Bakken oil play with high production projections is creating transportation challenges for moving oil to the pipeline terminals at Tioga and other locations.

27 Kilichowski, Phil, Operations Manager, Ardoch Coal Transfer Station, Ardoch, ND.

Figure 2.3 Most Prolific Oil Producing Counties

2.2 North Dakota Overall Freight Movements: Freight Analysis Framework

As noted in the literature review, the FHWA’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF)28 is a collection of data estimating commodity flow information in the United States. Individual state profiles and maps for 2002 are provided by FAF2. Freight movement estimates include activity among states, sub-state regions, and also international gateways. In the following text, maps have been created to provide an overview of North Dakota freight flows using the most current FAF2 data. FAF2 data is compiled using a variety of public data sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau Commodity Flow Survey. The figures on the following pages show overall freight movements (all modes) for North Dakota. The analysis below is by ton for volume purposes. Freight flows by value will differ in comparison. The strategic freight framework focuses on quantity for state transportation planning purposes, thus, mostly tonnage is used for the following interpretation.

Intrastate movements dominate freight flow for North Dakota, both when looking at all originating movements and terminating movements. The first map shows 62% of all freight movements reported by FAF2 originating in North Dakota remains in North Dakota. The second map shows that 77% of terminating freight originated in North Dakota. The total volume of these intrastate movements is the same for both maps (108,297,000 tons), but the percentages differ because of the differences in shipments originating and terminating in North Dakota. According to the 2002 FAF2 data, North Dakota originated

28 The Freight Analysis Framework integrates data from a variety of sources to estimate commodity flows and related freight transportation activity among states, regions, and major international gateways. The original version, FAF1, provides estimates for 1998 and forecasts for 2010 and 2020. The new version, FAF2, provides estimates for 2002 and the most recent year plus forecasts through 2035.

22 approximately 25% more tons of freight than it terminated. North Dakota’s positive trade balance is a critical factor for strategic planning.

According to the ―Freight Transportation Freight Profile on North Dakota,‖ truck traffic is expected to grow throughout the state over the next 20 years. Much of the growth will occur in urban areas and on the Interstate highway system. According to the document, truck traffic moving to and from North Dakota accounted for 12% of the average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) on the FAF road network. Approximately 49% of truck traffic involved in-state shipments, and 29% involved trucks traveling across the state to other markets. About 10% of the ADDTT were not identified with a route-specific origin or destination.

The greatest volume of international trade is with our North American neighbors, Canada and Mexico. North Dakota shipped 1,121,000 tons of freight to these countries and received 3,785,000 tons from them in 2002. In 2006, North Dakota exported $6.4 million of goods to Mexico and imported $42.5 million of product. The top exports to Mexico in terms of value were: oil seeds, oleaginous fruits, miscellaneous grains, and seeds.29

Statistics Canada’s North Dakota Fact Sheet points out that Canada is North Dakota’s number one international trading partner, accounting for almost 50% of North Dakota’s foreign trade.30 In 2006 the partners exchanged almost $2.2 billion worth of goods, and North Dakota exports to Canada were $690 million and imports were an estimated $1.5 billion.

Table 2.1 North Dakota Trade with Canada in 2006 Exports Value (millions) Imports Value (millions) Machinery $257 Energy $361 Agriculture $194 Chemicals $310 Transportation $69 Agriculture $284 Chemicals $36 Transportation $133 Metals $24 Machinery $132

The data included in the following section are for all modes. The following section describes North Dakota shipments and trading partners by mode. Additional freight-flow information is included in Appendix B of this document.

The top states that received freight from North Dakota include Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, New York, Kentucky, Montana, and Illinois. Eliminating the large portion of intrastate movements and focusing on all other movements shows North Dakota’s top trading partners (Figure 2.4). The orange arrows are state-to-state flow. The top five products were coal/petroleum, cereal grains, crude petroleum, other prepared foodstuffs, fats and oils, and other agricultural products. The most important states, based on quantity, are those directly bordering North Dakota: Minnesota, Montana, and South Dakota (Figures 2.4 Thru 2.7).

29 http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/reports/annual02/stcomm/tomex_val_wt_2002nd_all.html Available only in value terms. 30 http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/state_trade_2007/north_dakota-en.asp

Shipments originated in North Dakota: Summary from the FHWA database, ND traffic in 1000 tons (Source: North Dakota Freight Analysis Framework)

0.6%

0.5% 61.5%

37.4%

Figure 2.4 Shipments Originated in North Dakota, by Volume

ND Originated Shipments

Traffic type 1000 tons Percent

Intrastate 108,297 61.5% Other states 65,804 37.4% Exports, border gateways, 1,121 0.6% Mexico & Canada Exports, ocean gateways 807 0.5% Total 176,029 100.0%

ND Originated Shipments 3% 3% 4%

MN SD WI 34% 56% NY KY

Figure 2.5 North Dakota Originated Shipments with Top 5 Trading Partners

Shipments terminated in North Dakota: Summary from the FHWA database, ND traffic in 1000 tons (Source: North Dakota Freight Analysis Framework)

2.7%

0.1% 77.0%

20.3%

Figure 2.6 Shipments Terminated in North Dakota, by Volume

ND Terminated Shipments

Traffic type 1000 tons Percent

Intrastate 108,297 77.0% Other states 28,520 20.3% Exports, border gateways, 3,785 2.6%

Mexico & Canada Exports, ocean gateways 114 0.1% Total 140,716 100.0%

ND Terminated Shipments

3% 2% 8%

MT MN 20% IL SD WI 67%

Figure 2.7 North Dakota Terminated Shipments With Top 5 Trading Partners

The following tables and maps were created using 2002 FAF2 and illustrate North Dakota freight-flow by mode. The data shows nationwide movements of freight that originated and terminated in North Dakota. Truck and pipeline dominate both categories of total freight movement for the state.

For all shipments that move within North Dakota, trucks move 62% by ton and 87% by value. Pipeline comprises 36% (by ton) and 11% (by value) of the movements, while rail makes up about 1% of these movements by ton and value. The other modes (air, other, and truck-rail) each make 1% or less of movements starting and ending in the state.

The modal split of total freight shipped is similar for both origination and termination for North Dakota. Pipeline and unknown make up the top mode by volume initiating 48% of the originating freight. Truck accounts for 30% of outbound tonnage while rail’s outbound tonnage is 21%.

Pipeline’s inbound tonnage accounts for 58% of inbound freight by tonnage while truck and rail make up 28% and 13% respectively. Air, other, and truck-rail intermodal make up a very small portion with less than 1% each. These modal shares can be evaluated in terms of value and the percentages are similar. It should be noted, however, that the mode pipeline includes pipe as well as unknown shipments. They are combined in FAF2 data because of statistical uncertainty. The maps on the following pages illustrate these movements in more detail.

Table 2.2 North Dakota Shipments by Ton and Value (FAF2, 2002) (Percentages not equal to 100) Tons (Millions) Value (Millions of dollars) Within North Within Dakota Outbound Inbound North Dakota Outbound Inbound Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Truck 67.2 62 20.5 30 9.2 28 12,857.9 87 9,532.4 41 3,933.0 34 Pipeline & unknown 39.4 36 32.6 48 18.8 58 1,584.7 11 9,850.1 43 5,739.6 50 Rail 1.6 1 14.6 21 4.4 13 107.8 < 1 2,570.4 11 1,198.4 10 Water <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 0.2 < 1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 Air, air & truck <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 <1 2.1 < 1 Truck & rail <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 2.3 < 1 65.9 < 1 Other intermodal <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 < 1 218.0 1 1,038.3 5 569.7 5 Total 108.3 100 67.7 100 32.4 100 14,768.6 100 23,050.6 100 11,508.7 100

2.2.1 Air

Freight movements by air are small, accounting for less than a half percent of North Dakota’s freight volume. Originating and terminating air freight in the state is minimal (Figures 2.8 and 2.9). The greatest volume of air freight moving out of North Dakota terminates in Minnesota or New York.31 There are smaller volumes moving by air scattered around the rest of the country. When looking at the origination of inbound air freight by volume, it mostly originated in Iowa and Tennessee according to the FAF2 2002 data.32

Figure 2.8 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: Air 2002

31 These may be intermediate points, however data does not reveal the final destination. 32 FAF2 may count terminal origin or destination as the final stop (?) and is then expressed as high freight flow to or from an individual state.

Figure 2.9 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Air 2002

2.2.2 Pipeline

Pipeline is an important mode for North Dakota freight. For freight both originating and terminating in North Dakota, pipeline makes up 41% of all movements by ton (Figures 2.10 and 2.11). Most movements are petroleum products, including crude oil moving to refineries and finished product originating from the Tesoro refinery in Mandan. Other pipelines carry natural gas from western North Dakota.

Data from this category are pipeline and unknown. These modes are combined in the FAF2 dataset because pipeline flows are statistically uncertain. Freight moving out of the state by pipeline mainly goes to bordering states (Minnesota and South Dakota), but also to Kentucky. Movement the other direction (that is pipeline flows into North Dakota) come from Minnesota, South Dakota and Montana. The greatest movement for this mode is within our state.

Figure 2.10 Terminating Points for Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: Pipeline 2002

Figure 2.11 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Pipeline 2002

2.2.3 Rail

North Dakota freight is moved throughout the United States by rail. This is a vital freight-movement mode for our state due to its land-locked condition. Rail makes up about 21% of all outbound movements and 13% of inbound when looking at overall tonnage (Figures 12 and 13). Much of the raw agricultural product move to terminals via rail unit/shuttle trains, and the top commodities include wheat, corn, and soybeans. Other products that make up a large portion of rail movements are farm products (54%), coal and chemicals (22%), food products (20%), waste/scrap materials (2%), and petroleum and coal products (1%).

Table 2.3 Top Commodities Originated by Railroads in North Dakota During 2003 Commodity Tons of Freight Percent of Total Farm Products 12,234,397 54% Coal & Chemicals 4,934,702 22 Food Products 4,465,102 20 Waste & Scrap 488,196 2 Petroleum or Coal Products 214,412 1 Source: American Association of Railroads, 2005

Table 2.4 shows percentage of tons terminated in North Dakota during 2003 by commodity.

Table 2.4 Top Commodities Terminated by Railroads in North Dakota During 2003 Commodity Tons of Freight Percent of Total Coal 5,562,028 61 Farm Products 863,190 10 Chemicals 721,128 8 Glass & Stone Products 556,040 6 Nonmetallic Minerals 555,144 6 Source: American Association of Railroads, 2005

Figure 2.12 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: Rail 2002

Coal is the leading product shipped by rail and terminating in North Dakota (61%). Farm products are second followed by chemicals, glass and stone products and non-metallic minerals.

Figure 2.13 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Rail 2002

2.2.4 Truck

Trucking dominates North Dakota’s freight shipping within the state. FAF2 shows trucks originating North Dakota freight travel to every continental state, and terminating freight into North Dakota from all continental states as well. Movements by truck dominates freight-movement as it is the most flexible mode in regard to time and geography. Trucks make up 30% of all outbound shipments by ton and 28% of all inbound shipments (Figures 2.14 and 2.15).

Figure 2.14 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: Truck 2002

Figure 2.15 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Truck 2002

2.2.5 Truck and Rail

According to FAF2 data, the multi-modal, truck and rail combination is insignificant for North Dakota freight movements. This category makes up less than 1% of total inbound and outbound North Dakota shipments by ton. However, multi-modal does make up large shipments because of the grain movements leaving the state by rail that were originated by truck.

2.2.6 All Modes

Figure 2.16 and Figure 2.17 show the total tonnage movements that originate and terminate in North Dakota.

Figure 2.16 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Ton: All Modes 2002

Figure 2.17 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Ton: Air 2002

The following maps show freight origin and destination based on freight value. Comparing freight by value versus weight shows the contrast of the different modes. Some bulky, high-weight freight can be of low value and other freight may be light, however, much more valuable on a pound-per-pound comparison. As stated earlier in the document, these different characteristics lead to the mode of preference for shipping. Preparing a thorough freight plan requires examination of freight movements from both of these angles.

2.2.7 Air

Freight movements by air are very small, making up not even half a percent of North Dakota’s freight by value. High value is critical to some businesses. Air freight both originating and terminating in the state is minimal (Figures 2.18 and 2.19).

Figure 2.18 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Air 2002

Figure 2.19 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Air 2002

2.2.8 Pipeline

Pipeline is an important mode for North Dakota freight by value. For freight originating in North Dakota, this mode makes up 11% of all movements by value and 43% of outbound movements. Crude oil, refined petroleum products, and natural gas all move by pipeline. These products move in different pipeline systems and are not commingled. Again, these numbers may be somewhat skewed as the FAF2 data source includes pipeline and unknown shipments together. (Figure 2.20 and Figure 2.21).

Figure 2.20 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Pipeline 2002

Figure 2.21 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Pipeline 2002

2.2.9 Rail

Even though rail predominately moves bulky, low-value freight, it still composes an important portion of North Dakota movements by value. Rail makes up about 11% of outbound movements and 10% of inbound when looking at overall value (Figures 2.22 and 2.23).

Figure 2.22 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Rail 2002

Figure 2.23 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Rail 2002

2.2.10 Truck

Trucking dominates North Dakota’s freight shipping by tonnage and dollar value. FAF2 data shows trucks moving North Dakota-originated and terminated freight to and from every continental state. Trucking accounts for 41% of all outbound shipments by value and nearly 34% of all inbound shipments (Figures 2.24 and 2.25).

Figure 2.24 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Truck 2002

Figure 2.25 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Truck 2002

2.2.11 Truck and Rail

FAF2 data shows the intermodal truck and rail combination freight is quite low. This category makes up less than 1% of total inbound and outbound North Dakota shipments by value (Figures 2.26 and 2.27).

Figure 2.26 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Truck, Rail 2002

Figure 2.27 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Truck, Rail 2002

2.2.12 Other

The modal category, other, is also very small. For shipments originating or terminating in North Dakota, other comprises less than 5% by value (Figure 2.28 and Figure 2.29). The mode other includes U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and courier shipments and all intermodal combinations other than truck and rail and air and truck.33

Figure 2.28 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: Other 2002

Figure 2.29 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: Other 2002

33 Federal Highway Administration, US Dept. of Transportation. Freight Analysis Framework, 2002.

2.2.13 All Modes

Figure 2.30 and Figure 2.31 show the total movements originating and terminating in North Dakota by dollar value. As mentioned previously, comparison of freight movements by weight as well as value is important for state planning. While weight focuses on the overall amount of goods moving in, out, within, and through the state, examining value tells where the money is coming from or going to.

Figure 2.30 Terminating Points of All Shipments Originating in ND by Value: All Modes 2002

Figure 2.31 Originating Points of All Shipments Terminating in ND by Value: All Modes 2002

The previous maps present North Dakota freight-flow by mode and origin-destination points based on FAF2. The state’s trading partners generate supply and demand for all types of freight into and out of North Dakota. The states playing the greatest role in North Dakota commerce are those in close proximity (such as Minnesota, South Dakota, Montana and Iowa), but interstate trade spans the entire nation. While truck and pipeline dominate total freight movement for North Dakota, rail, air, and truck-rail play a part in moving goods and being competitive in the global economy.

2.3 North Dakota’s Truck Transportation Movements

Truck transportation plays a vital role in the regional economy. Throughout the region, truck transportation is the first and last mode for moving commodities, raw materials, and finished goods. Much of the region’s economy is based on the movement of natural resources and an efficient truck transportation system is crucial for stimulating economic growth.

Trade within the region, especially since the implementation of the NAFTA, has increased dramatically. In a study released by Northern Great Plains, Inc., the value of trade among many of the states and provinces within the region grew by almost 700% in the first five years after the passage of NAFTA January 1, 1994. Ever increasing trade volumes create a sense of urgency to develop a more efficient and economically competitive regional truck transportation system.

2.3.1 North Dakota Regional Truck Freight

A regional strategic freight study conducted by the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute (UGPTI) indicates that a myriad of different truck size and weight regulations exist, increasing shipper costs and making the region’s businesses less competitive. Truck size and weight regulations are meant to promote safety and to prevent excessive damage to highways and bridges. Truck size and weight regulations are set by the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, (CFR 23) for the Interstate System and Primary Federal- Aid Highway System. Truck route designations, along with length, width, and weight limitations, are described in Part 658 of CFR 23. Confusion exists in interpreting some regulations. Therefore, the FHWA has a role in deciphering the rules and enforcing compliance by states. Because of ―Grandfather Provisions,‖ regulations on truck size and weight are not consistent among bordering states, and Canadian provinces have their own truck regulations.

In 2002, the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) published a statewide strategic transportation plan called, ―TransAction.‖ TransAction Initiative 8 states, ―North Dakota will determine the opportunities for, and the economic and safety impacts of, a regional uniform truck size, weight and permitting system.‖ TransAction also stated, ―A complex regulatory environment governs tire and axle loads, gross vehicle weights, vehicle heights and widths, trailer and semi trailer lengths, and combination vehicle lengths.‖ This statement asserts the problems businesses face in trying to ship within the region. An ever-increasing volume of trade is conducted among the region’s states and provinces, and it would be beneficial to explore opportunities to harmonize vehicle size and weight regulations and provide a permitting process that would allow for seamless movements of freight.

NDDOT has also developed the next phase for strategic transportation planning called TransAction II. Like TransAction, TransAction II has been developed to further focus resources and meet the evolving infrastructure and service needs and demands of the state’s residents and businesses. The development of TransAction II represents the next step toward the ongoing processes involved in transportation planning. Several of the initiatives in TransAction II have combined TransAction initiatives. TransAction II provides broad and strategic direction for long-range (20 year) transportation planning and extends focus

41 on the importance of meaningfully engaging the public and private sectors, all levels of government, and all modes of transportation to succeed.

NDDOT recognizes that the North Dakota freight system is a complex system extending well beyond the borders of the state and includes air, rail, highway, and water. Constraints elsewhere, including port, airport, railroad, and highway congestion, rail and motor carrier equipment availability, fuel availability and cost, and other factors, all affect the freight system’s capacity within the state of North Dakota.

Trade is the basis for economic expansion. Traditionally a large portion of the region’s economy is based on natural resources. Recently the region has also experienced growth in manufacturing and technology industries. Access to water transportation requires intermodal connections with either motor carrier or rail, and many shippers are captive to only one rail company. Truck transportation provides advantages in terms of accessibility, flexibility, and door-to-door services. Efficient transportation service for these industries is crucial to maintaining, stimulating, and diversifying economic growth.

Truck size and weight regulations in the region’s states and provinces are controlled and specified by state departments of transportation and provincial departments of highways, rural municipal councils, major urban transportation agencies, U.S. Department of Transportation, national parks, public works, tribal governments, and other government agencies and services. Truck size and weight laws are continually evolving. However, because of the inconsistencies in size and weight regulations, movements of freight by truck across state lines and provincial borders is not optimal.

The information in the regional strategic freight study provides the basis for discussing the inconsistencies that exist for size, weight, and permitting regulations in the region. Cooperation among public and private sector leaders is needed to improve the region’s truck transportation system and make the region more competitive.

The regional strategic freight study identified highway segments with high truck volume and a change of volume over time. Figure 2.32 shows 1998 truck volume on the segments of highways. The FAF Highway Capacity Network Files used their data sources to estimate the average daily trucks. The highway segments with high truck volume can be used to identify potential interregional corridors. For example, the number of average daily trucks on I-80 near Cheyenne was 8,827. Also, I-94 near St. Paul had an average of 5,050 trucks daily.

The FAF Highway Capacity Network Files also provided projected truck volume in 2010 and 2020. Figure 2.33 shows the average daily trucks on highway segments for projected year of 2010.

Figure 2.34 shows the average daily trucks on highway segments for 2020. A significant increase was found in all segments of I-80 in 2020. The 2020 projected daily truck volume on I-80 near Cheyenne (17,037) is more than twice the estimated 1998 daily truck volume (8,827).

Figure 2.32 Estimated 1998 Average Daily Trucks in the Seven States (Source: FAF Highway Capacity Network Files, FHWA)

Figure 2.33 Projected 2010 Average Daily Trucks in the Seven States (Source: FAF Highway Capacity Network Files, FHWA)

Figure 2.34 Projected 2020 Average Daily Trucks in the Seven States (Source: FAF Highway Capacity Network Files, FHWA)

Figure 2.35 and Table 2.5 show selected locations of highway segments and their estimated and projected truck volume. As previously noted, high truck volumes were found in all selected segments. For example, average daily truck volume on I-94 near Billings in 1998, 2010, and 2020 was 800, 1,156, and 1,522, respectively. As shown in Table 2.5, Point B on I-80 (near Lincoln) has the largest increase in daily truck volume among the highway segments examined. It is projected that on Point B on I-80 a 54% increase would will from 1998 to 2010 in average daily truck traffic.

I-94 Point A I-94 Point B I-94 Point C

I-29 Point A I-29 Point B

I-29 Point C

I-80 Point A I-80 Point B I-80 Point C

Figure 2.35 Selected Locations of the Identified Highway Segments for Average Daily Trucks

Further, Table 2.5 shows a 104% increase (13,483) for 2020 projected average daily truck traffic. Among the highway groups, I-80 shows the highest increase in average truck volumes from three selected locations. Average increases for 2020 projected daily trucks for I-94, I-29, and I-80 are 58%, 84%, and 95%, respectively.

Table 2.5 Average Daily Trucks on Identified Highway Segments Estimated Projected Location/Year 1998 2010 2020 I-94 Point A (near Billings) 800 1,156 1,522 Point B (near Fargo) 1,801 2,344 2,860 Point C (near St. Paul) 5,050 4,889 6,384 I-29 Point A (near Grand Forks) 2,239 3,272 4,235 Point B (near Fargo) 2,308 3,358 4,333 Point C (near Omaha) 2,780 3,934 4,938 I-80 Point A (near Cheyenne) 8,827 12,828 17,037 Point B (near Lincoln) 6,619 10,211 13,483 Point C (near Des Moines) 7,238 10,469 13,647 (Source: FAF Highway Capacity Network Files, Federal Highway Administration)

According to a map developed by NDDOT on the State HPCS, the highest Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)34 is by far on the interstate highways.

Truck travel scenarios across states and provinces provide insight into the inconsistent and complex truck size and weight regulations in the region. This non-uniform regulatory system decreases payloads and increases travel times for trucks, resulting in a less than optimum truck transportation system. Increased transportation costs make the region’s products less competitive, reducing trade opportunities and stifling the region’s economy.

Total travel time includes the time spent in weigh stations and ports of entry as well as the travel time on the selected routes based on truck size and weight regulations. Further, regulations restrict the entry of certain truck types, increasing the number of trips to haul the same load. A travel scenario analysis was developed in the regional strategic freight study conducted by the UGPTI to identify weight and size regulations for specific vehicles. The scenarios point out problems of inconsistent truck weight and size regulations for shippers crossing state and provincial borders (See Appendix H).

In summary, the projections of increased freight volumes throughout the region highlight the need to adopt regional freight corridors for the efficient movement of goods. Further, harmonization in truck size and weight regulations would reduce truck numbers and provide a more efficient highway network serving businesses throughout the region.

34 Load Equivalency Factors

The equation outputs are load equivalency factors (LEFs) or ESAL factors. This factor relates various axle load combinations to the standard 80 kN (18,000 lbs) single axle load. It should be noted that ESALs as calculated by the ESAL equations are dependent upon the pavement type (flexible or rigid) and the pavement structure (structural number for flexible and slab depth for rigid). As a rule-of-thumb, the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide, Part III, Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.3 recommends the use of a multiplier of 1.5 to convert flexible ESALs to rigid ESALs (or a multiplier of 0.67 to convert rigid ESALs to flexible ESALs). Using load spectra (as proposed in the 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures) will eliminate the need for flexible-rigid ESAL conversions.

Figure 2.36 Total Average Annual Daily Trucks on North Dakota Highways (2007)

Figure 2.37 Equivalent Single Axle Loads on North Dakota Highways

2.4 North Dakota’s Railroads

There are currently seven railroads operating 3,609 miles35 of railroad in North Dakota. Two are Class I carriers, three are regional railroads, and two are local railroads.36

The American Association of Railroads (AAR) has a classification system that considers both annual revenue and miles of railroad. BNSF Railway (BNSF) and C P Railway (CPR) are Class I railroads by STB classification standards. The Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western Railroad (DMVW), the Northern Plains Railroad (NPR), and the Red River Valley & Western Railroad (RRVW) do not meet the Class I revenue threshold. They are defined as regional railroads by AAR classification standards because they operate more than 350 miles of railroad. The Yellowstone Valley Railroad (YSVR) and Dakota Northern Railroad (DNRR) are both local railroads because they fall below the AAR regional railroad criteria.37 Figure 2.38 provides a map of railroads and Table 2.6 lists the miles of main line and branch line track in North Dakota by operating railroad. BNSF miles of road are about 62% main line while CPR has about 79% main line. The Class I carriers operate 62% of the total track mileage in North Dakota.

Figure 2.38 North Dakota Railroad Map

35 Miles of railroad excludes side tracks, crossovers and yard tracks. The term is synonymous with route miles. 36The Surface Transportation Board (STB) classifies railroads as Class I, II, or III on the basis of annual revenue: - Class I: Equal or greater than $250 million adjusted annual operating revenue for three consecutive years. - Class II: $20 million - $249,999,999.99 - Class III: <$20 million 37 A regional railroad is defined by the Association of American Railroads as a company that operates 350 miles of railroad and/or earns $40 million in annual revenues. Mileage is based on total system miles, which may include track in more than one state. A local railroad falls below the regional railroad criterion.

Table 2.6 North Dakota Railroad System Mileage, 2005 Railroad Owner Main Line Branch Line Total BNSF 1,107 683 1,790 CP Rail 353 92 445 Red River Valley & Western Railroad - 428 428 Northern Plains Railway - 436 436 Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western - 431 431 Railroad Yellowstone Valley Railroad - 9 9 Dakota Northern Railroad - 70 70 Total 1,460 2,149 3,609 (Source: North Dakota Public Service Commission, December 2005)

2.5 North Dakota’s Elevator System and Agricultural Freight Movements

Agricultural shipments make up a large portion (64%) of the railroad traffic originating in North Dakota. It is important to have an efficient effective method of transporting these agricultural products to market. The elevator system in North Dakota has evolved over time and, even though there are far fewer elevators, the capacity of the system has increased with innovation and change.

As the elevator system has evolved, investments have been made to promote efficiency with the lure of reduced rates from the railroads. In some cases, market forces have dictated upgrading to a multi-car or shuttle loading facility, requiring large investment in track and storage.

There are four main ways to measure elevator capacity, including storage, track capacity, throughput, and rate received based on shipment size. These measures have changed some over time and continue to evolve. Prior to shuttle rates, there were rates for single car, multi 26-car, and 52-car loading facilities. With the advent of the shuttle or efficiency trains, throughput is probably the most important measure. Storage and track capacity and tariff rate information as to shipment size is available for individual elevators or locations. However, throughput is confidential information that most elevators chose not to disclose, and not all rate information is known.

The North Dakota State Rail Plan suggests that an elevator may need 800,000 bu. minimum storage capacity ―to function effectively in the shuttle train program.‖38 There are 60 grain elevators on the BNSF system in North Dakota that have at least 800,000 bu. capacity. An estimated 95 elevators have less than 500,000 bu. of available capacity.39 The remainder have less than 250,000 bu. capacity.

38 This minimal capacity value is approximately equal to two 110-car shuttle trains. There are several rationales underlying this estimate. First, an elevator would probably need some of its storage for specialty commodities, blending, or other functions. Thus, the full capacity of an elevator may not be available for loading a given shuttle train. Second, to participate in the shuttle program, an elevator may have to load as many as three trains per month. With a 10-day interval between trains, any shortage of grain on hand could result in the elevator missing a shuttle train. Finally, it may be risky for the elevator to plan on accumulating a trainload from farms or nearby elevators by truck within 15 hours, particularly during periods of inclement weather or load limits. In many respects, storage provides a buffer against uncertainties in supply.

39 BNSF Grain Elevator Directory available via the Internet at bnsf.com.

2.5.1 Side Track or Loading Track Capacity

In addition to storage capacity, track capacity at a shipper facility determines the size train or number of cars an elevator can receive for a shipment. Side track capacity is measured in equivalent rail cars. A 286,000-lb. gravity-discharge covered hopper car is approximately 60 ft. in length. It takes about 6,600 ft. of track to hold 110 of them. The total amount of track required for a 110-car train varies depending on the configuration at the facility. Circle tracks may take up the least footage for loading a train. Straight tracks may require the most space as each car needs to be positioned under a loading spout. Fewer than 15% (31) of the elevators on the BNSF system in North Dakota have track capacity for an unbroken string of more than 100 cars.

2.5.2 Shuttle Train Elevators

During the 1990s, BNSF introduced shuttle train rates for grain movements in the Northern Plains. These rates were introduced to reduce origin/destination pairs for the railroad and build efficiency into the grain transportation business. High equipment utilization increases revenue and leads to high profits. For shippers to participate in the program they typically have to load 110 or more 111-ton covered hopper cars within 15 hours. The time factor for loading increases the need for on-site storage capacity. The capacity of the typical BNSF 110-car shuttle train consisting of 111-ton covered hopper cars is over 400,000 bu. of wheat.

Shuttle train rates have resulted in either the building of shuttle loading facilities or upgrades to some existing facilities to shuttle loading facilities. The requirements vary by railroad, but a shuttle train is typically a 100- or 110-car train of 111-ton covered hopper cars. Shuttle trains usually have dedicated power, with the locomotives and cars remaining together as they move back and forth between shipper and destination. Elevators must have adequate track and grain storage capacity, as mentioned above, to be able to take advantage of shuttle rates and service. Requirements vary between Class I railroads.

2.5.3 BNSF Railway Requirements

BNSF defines a shuttle facility as one ―that can accept 110-cars in one string and can load or unload them in 15 hours without fouling the main line.‖ Shuttle facilities on the RRVW network meet these requirements. Products shipped in the BNSF shuttle program include corn, wheat, and soybeans.

2.5.4 CPR Requirements

The CPR refers to shuttle trains as efficiency trains. CPR efficiency trains have 100 cars, usually with dedicated power. An efficiency train elevator is required to load 100 cars within 24 hours without fouling the mainline. All efficiency train facilities on the CPR and DMVW networks meet these requirements. The requirement for NPR lines is listed below. Wheat is the primary commodity shipped on CPR efficiency trains.

CPR allows two exceptions on the NPR to the 100-car requirement in North Dakota. CPR allows NPR to restrict train length to 75 cars. CPR moves 75 car trains eastbound from NPR lines. CPR combines cars to reach the full 100-car train for westbound products. CPR allows a pooling arrangement among elevators and combining cars to make a 100-car train.

Even though there are relatively few shuttle loaders in North Dakota compared to the total number of elevators in the state, according to the ND Rail Plan, the elevator industry’s ―grain handling ability is adequate for present ND crop production and movement requirements if they are operated at capacity.‖

A complete listing of North Dakota elevators is included in Appendix A.

Figure 2.39 North Dakota Elevators, No Rail Elevators/No Rail Service40

Figure 2.40 North Dakota Elevators, Single Car Elevator: 1 to 24 railcars

40 Elevators may be located on a rail line and be considered no-rail service elevators because of many reasons, such as low volume, dealing in specialty crops, or other reasons.

Figure 2.41 North Dakota, Multi Car Elevators: 25 to 49 railcars

Figure 2.42 North Dakota, Unit-Car Elevators: Track space for 50 to 99 railcars

Figure 2.43 North Dakota Elevators, 100 Car Elevators: Track space for 100 + railcars

2.5.5 Spring Load Restrictions

Due to North Dakota’s geographic location and climate, load restrictions during spring thaw are an impediment to freight transportation and increase transportation costs. Load restrictions are necessary to preserve the highway infrastructure during the spring thaw. Figure 2.44 shows a map snap shot of spring load restrictions and elevator location information on interstate, U.S. and state highways in North Dakota. Load restrictions are put in place to preserve the highway during spring thaw when the road infrastructure is most susceptible to damage by heavy trucks and move based on the projected spring thawing of the road bed. A study conducted by the UGPTI revealed that shipper costs more than double with a 6-ton restriction versus an 8-ton restriction.41

41 Mark Berwick, Mark Lofgren, Junwook Chi. Strategic Freight Analysis; Regional Strategic Freight Study on Motor Carrier Issues, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, June, 2005.

Figure 2.44 Snapshot of North Dakota Load Restrictions on Interstate, U.S. and State Highways and Elevator Locations. (Load restrictions are seasonal and change frequently during the spring thaw, Spring, 2007)

2.5.6 Agricultural Movements

According to grain elevator reports, 75% to 80% of the state’s grains and oilseeds are shipped by rail. Rail share is greatest with long distance movements. Only 21% of grain shipments that terminated in state moved by rail in 2003. The shipments destined for local processing plants and terminal elevators, such as the North Dakota Mill & Elevator in Grand Forks, are moved in trucks which, for short distances, have historically been competitive with rail. In contrast, shipments moving longer distances, such as the 84% of the grain moving to Minneapolis and 90% of the grain destined for Duluth, travel by rail. Moreover, railroads transported about 93% of grain shipments to the Gulf and 99% of grain shipped to the Pacific Northwest. All agricultural products move some distance by truck. The first move from field to elevator or from the field to farm storage and additional movement to the elevator or processor at a later date move by truck.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20% Share of MovementsRailShare by

0% PNW Gulf Duluth MPLS Other MN ND Destination

Figure 2.45 Rail Share of Grain & Oilseeds Originating in North Dakota by Destination42

Figure 2.46 is based on grain elevator reports. This figure shows, approximately 42% of North Dakota grain and oilseed shipments went to Minneapolis, Duluth, or other Minnesota destinations in 2004. Many of the shipments terminated at processing plants or mills in Minnesota. However, some may have been transferred to barges at Minneapolis or re-billed to another destination, such as Chicago. The fact that 16% of North Dakota grain and oilseed shipments were terminated in-state illustrates the importance of the local processing sector to the economy.

30%

25%

20%

15%

Percentage 10%

0% MPLS PNW ND Other MN Duluth Gulf Destination

Figure 2.46 Percentage of North Dakota Grain & Oilseed Shipments by Destination43

42 Source: Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Other Minnesota includes movements to Wisconsin. 43 Source: Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Other Minnesota includes shipments to Wisconsin.

2.5.7 North Dakota’s Containerized Intermodal Freight

Intermodal transportation growth has been aided by deregulation of U.S. transportation, global business growth, and changes in the business environment. Intermodal transportation is an important part of value- added manufacturing. Lower total logistics costs are realized by using each mode for the portion of the trip for which it is best suited. For example, rail is used on the long-distance haul and truck on the short- distance haul to and from the intermodal facility, providing the advantages of truck for door-to-door service and increased commodity security, and the economies provided by rail. Moreover, intermodal truck-rail service also mimics the improved reliability of truck over rail, as rail carriers have placed a heavy emphasis on reliability for their intermodal services. Using rail for the long-haul portion of the trip may also result in improved environmental conditions, including improved air quality because of reduced energy consumption.

Benefits of intermodal transportation include:  lower overall logistics costs  increased economic productivity and efficiency  reduced congestion and burden on over-stressed highway infrastructure  higher returns from public and private infrastructure investments  reduced energy consumption  increased safety  improved environmental conditions

A relatively recent trend in intermodal transportation is moving agricultural commodities for export in containers. Many of these shipments are classified as identity-preserved (IP) products where the definition of identity-preserved may be simply providing a customer with a specific product origin, or as complex as guaranteeing and ordering specific agronomical practices.44 Organically grown wheat or soybeans for export are examples of identity-preserved commodities. Containerization ensures the shipper and receiver the integrity of the product being shipped. Identity-preserved market demands will subsequently increase demand for container shipments in rural settings where IP commodities are grown.

Many North Dakota farmers are seeking ways to add value to their farming operations, and many are already exporting directly and others are exploring the possibility of exporting IP grain in small lots. Rural North Dakota IP shippers need the containers and the ability to exploit the economies of shipping by rail over long distance to be competitive in the IP market. Without access to an intermodal loading facility within a reasonable distance, premiums negotiated for the IP shipment may be lost to transportation costs.

Several studies have been conducted looking at containerized intermodal freight into and out of North Dakota. Most of these studies have been feasibility studies with the express hope that a terminal that provides rates and service will be established in North Dakota. A study was conducted by Leeper, Cambridge, and Campbell in 1996 for the Grand Forks area after ramp closure and rate abandonment by the BNSF. After the ramp closure, BNSF offered shippers out of Grand Forks a paper ramp which constitutes a rate with the BNSF draying the containers to either Dilworth or Minneapolis for service. After some time the railroad abandoned the rate and Grand Forks area shippers were left to dray the freight to a terminal.

44 SP-143 Identity Preserved Grain- Logistical Overview, Kimberly Vachal and Heidi Reichert, January 2000.

The UGPTI has conducted studies examining containerized transportation. A study, ―Potential for Locating Intermodal Facilities on Short Line Railroads,‖ looked at the role that a shortline railroad might play in intermodal shipping. The 2000 to 2001 Biennial Strategic Freight Analysis surveyed North Dakota businesses to try and gauge the need for intermodal freight transportation for North Dakota shippers. The study showed that the greatest potential for intermodal freight was out of southeastern North Dakota. Another study was conducted for the Minot area in their bid to locate a terminal in Minot. This study was conducted by Carter Burgess and the results of that study showed that there is limited volume in the Minot area. In the 2002/2003 Biennial Strategic Freight Analysis, UGPTI researchers again looked at intermodal freight in North Dakota. A survey again was conducted with similar results of the first study. Other criteria were also developed that could contribute to the success of an intermodal terminal. These criteria are listed in Appendix E. Kadrmas Lee & Jackson also looked at the potential of an intermodal terminal to be located in Bismarck. The results of their work were conceptualizing and construction of the Northern Plains Commerce Center (NPCC), which is a premier transload facility. However, the NPCC may eventually provide limited intermodal or container service. The results of these studies prompted NDDOT to consolidate all previous studies and look at the volume statewide. As of October 2007, a study had been conducted that proposes coordination of intermodal terminals at Dilworth, Minnesota, (Fargo/Moorhead) and Minot where traffic would be combined for export. The proposal could result in intermodal service being provided by BNSF railway to the two terminals using a co-loading system. Co- loading a train may result in adequate volume to fill unit trains for movement to the west coast. BNSF Railway announced equalizing rates for west coast shipments with their Minneapolis/St. Paul terminal, however, this is meaningless without cooperation of the steamship lines who hold control of the containers.

It is difficult to estimate intermodal volume as this market faces long distances to terminals. The problem is that there is minimal known volume because of high rates and a lack of service, and the rates are high and service minimal because there is low volume. UGPTI’s Eastern North Dakota study survey respondents reported over 16,000 containers shipped in and out of a 100-mile radius of Fargo. Estimations, based on employee numbers, increase the potential inbound and outbound shipments to some 37,000 TOFC/COFC shipments.45 With the trends in IP agricultural shipping and increases in manufacturing and processing, intermodal shipping out of North Dakota is realistic and necessary for businesses to compete in the global marketplace.

45 Feasibility of a Logistics Center Including Container/Trailer Intermodal Transportation in the Fargo/Moorhead Area (2005).

3. SAFETY AND SECURITY AND POTENTIAL OBSTACLES TO NORTH DAKOTA FREIGHT MOVEMENTS

The terms safety and security are often used together and interchangeably. While it is sometimes beneficial to discuss these issues separately, further research into the complexities of both makes differentiation difficult.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines safety as follows: ―1 : the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss

They define security as follows: ―1 : the quality or state of being secure : as a : freedom from danger :

Both terms are associated with feelings of being free from danger or injury. Safety is a more personal, controlled issue. Safety is avoidance of ―hurt or injury.‖ Security, on the other hand, is more out of one’s own control. It is referred to as freedom from danger, but those ―dangers‖ are difficult for individual people to influence, although they might try to lessen the possibility of occurrence. The following anecdote illustrates this more clearly. A crack in a walking path is a safety issue. In order to avoid or lessen possible injury, a person can wear a helmet due to chances they might come across such a gap in the path and fall. On the other hand, burglary may be viewed as a security hazard. Individuals cannot control a person deciding to break into their house and steal valuable items. However, to minimize the danger of that occurring, a security system could be installed.

The two terms in the context of transportation does not make the differentiation any clearer. Transportation safety and security intertwine, overlap, and commingle with each other just as in other contexts. It is difficult to define one separately from the other, especially since the goal of achieving transportation ―freedom from danger or injury‖ involves examination and understanding of both.

An attempt at defining differences between these two terms is subjective. Transportation safety issues seem to revolve around matters of personal motor vehicle crashes. These are all personal themes that involve directly making a person safer. Thus, transportation safety issues may include seatbelt usage, speeding or reckless driving, driving under the influence of alcohol, graduated drivers licenses, and road features such as rumble strips.

Transportation security issues, on the other hand, entail indirect incidents such as intentional attacks or crimes. Security entails prevention of intentional attacks, and has a less personal scope. Examples of security topics in transportation are hazardous materials planning, border security, freight inspection, and infectious disease control. The intention of transportation security is to make transportation safer, but not directly. For example, individuals can impact their safety by wearing a seatbelt and driving the speed limit. However, they cannot personally control intentional terrorist acts that might involve using en-route hazardous materials.

Transportation safety and security are important in regard to freight planning. Various events that fall under these headings could potentially cause obstacles in moving freight into, through, within, or out of North Dakota. There are safety and security concerns for each state. Identifying and thorough planning is the answer to the minimization of any possible occurrences. A good example of such a concern for North Dakota is the movement of hazardous materials. NDDOT continues to coordinate with other state agencies to identify critical transportation infrastructure, and such information cannot be disclosed in accordance with ND Century Code 44-04-24 and 6 USC 131 (3) Section 212 (3) of the Homeland Security Act.

3.1 Hazardous Freight Generation and Security Requirements

Hazardous freight is frequently generated throughout North Dakota as many farming, mining, and manufacturing activities may require the use of various types of fertilizers, fuel, and chemicals. Transportation of hazardous freight poses certain safety and security risks to the environment and the public. Diamond placards have been used for many years on vehicles transporting certain types and quantities of hazardous materials. The placards indicate to emergency responders how to safely handle a material, mitigate the threat of environmental damage, and conduct life-saving operations in the event of an accident.

According to the USDOT agricultural producers who ship or transport certain hazardous materials in quantities that require placards must develop and implement a transportation security plan. The rule affects transportation of hazardous materials needed to support commercial activities like farming, ranching, mining, and manufacturing. The goal of this process is to deter terrorist and other illegal acts while limiting a producer’s exposure to liability in the event that an illegal act occurs.

In addition, the federal government passed the Uniting & Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act in 2001. This requires commercial drivers who move hazardous materials to pass a criminal history check and have fingerprints taken. Renewal of a hazmat commercial driver’s license (CDL) requires a federal security threat assessment as well as a hazardous materials knowledge test.46 Each state has requirements for obtaining a CDL and additional requirements for transporting hazardous materials. In North Dakota, after securing a CDL and then passing the federal security assessment, a driver may take the test for hazardous material transport in order to transport these materials.

The following chart developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration lists examples of the types and quantities of hazardous material that require a placard, and thus, a transportation security plan.

46 http://www.dot.nd.gov/dlhazardousmaterial.html

Figure 3.1 Examples of Hazardous Materials Requiring a Placard47

3.2 Roles and Responsibilities of Freight Systems Key Players

Various events or situations (such as an overturned truck or railcar carrying hazardous materials) can affect and delay movement of freight. Some of these events may require response from state and local entities. Plans of action and emergency response are critical to keep freight moving. Many organizations play a role in emergency transportation, including emergency services agencies such as fire departments, ambulance services, law enforcement, and homeland security. Various transportation agencies, like state DOTs, ND Departments of Emergency Services (DES), local highway, public works, and traffic engineering organizations, may also be involved. Coordination among these entities is critical for minimizing the effects of these potentially costly and dangerous occurrences.

47 Source: http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/hmt/AgSec%20Flyer%20V5.pdf

Emergency transportation operations (ETO), as defined by Barid et al., is ―used to describe a wide range of activities, including response, recovery, mitigation, prevention and preparedness, relative to incidents or circumstances that impact the transportation system by reducing capacity, increasing demand, or otherwise threatening public health and safety.‖ ETO, as defined here, applies to all of the following situations:  Minor traffic crashes, disabled or abandoned vehicles, debris in the roadway, and other circumstances that disrupt traffic flow and create hazards  Major traffic crashes involving fatalities, injuries, overturned vehicles, and serious property damage  Highway construction and maintenance work zones  Special events that attract large crowds and create exceptional traffic demands  Law enforcement and security activities that cause major traffic disruptions  Hazardous material spills on or near transportation infrastructure  Severe weather and natural disasters, including events that require large-scale evacuation  Public health emergencies or other events that require large-scale travel restrictions or quarantines  Acts of terrorism that target the transportation system or that create exceptional transportation demands

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) report, Protecting America’s Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels: The Role of State DOTs in Homeland Security, says State DOTs are ―guardians of the nation’s transportation infrastructure.‖ State DOTs play a vital role in keeping freight flowing in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist activity, or vehicle-related accident. When these events occur, traffic flow is slowed or stopped. DOTs need plans to work with emergency responders. When the transportation network is affected, the DOT becomes the key responder. The AASHTO report names a few DOT key functions in emergency situations: keeping travelers informed, managing traffic, providing transportation, facilities personnel, and equipment, and reconstructing infrastructure. AASHTO has created a vulnerability and criticality assessment and risk management guide. The purpose of this guide is to assist DOTs in determining the extent of threats to transportation systems. Every state DOT has access to this for the purpose of identifying the extent and nature of threats to their state transportation network.

AASHTO’s report includes a thorough list of DOT partners in transportation security (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 State DOT Partners for Transportation Security U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) U.S. Department of Homeland Security (including – see below): U.S. Coast Guard Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Intelligence Agencies (CIA, FBI, and ND Attorney General) U.S. Department of Defense Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Local Transit Agencies Railroad Operators Airport Operators Trucking Associations Port Authorities Bridge and Tunnel Operators State Emergency Management Agencies Public Health and Safety Authorities Local and State Law Enforcement Local and State First Responders Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

The North Dakota Disaster Act of 1985 defines key players and roles for emergency services. The purpose of this Act is five-fold: 1. ―Reduce vulnerability of people and communities of this state to damage, injury, and loss of life and property resulting from natural or manmade disasters or emergencies, or hostile military or paramilitary action.‖ 2. ―Provide a setting conducive to the rapid and orderly start of restoration and rehabilitation of persons and property affected by disasters or emergencies.‖ 3. ―Clarify the roles of the governor, state agencies, and local governments in mitigation of, preparation for, and response to and recovery from disasters or emergencies.‖ 4. ―Authorize and provide for coordination of emergency management activities by agencies and officers of this state, and similar state-local, interstate, federal-state, and foreign activities in which the state and its political subdivisions may participate.‖ 5. ―Provide for a statewide emergency management system embodying all aspects of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.‖ As proclaimed by this act, the governor’s roles in disasters or emergencies are outlined. In summarizing these roles, the governor is responsible for ―minimizing or averting the adverse effects‖ of emergency situations. The governor is in charge of issuing proclamations and executive orders for disasters and states of emergency. Under any such issuance, the governor is commander in chief of emergency management and all appropriate agencies for emergency duty.

This act also outlines the role of the State Division of Homeland Security and its vital role in emergency management. The Division of Homeland Security ―shall prepare and maintain a state disaster plan and keep it current.‖ This plan should include practices and procedures for minimizing injury and damage, timely response, and emergency relief for disasters or emergencies. In addition the plan is to include ―organization of manpower and chains of command, coordination of federal, state, local emergency management activities, and coordination of state disaster or emergency operations plan with the disaster or emergency plan of the federal government,‖ among other tasks.

Local emergency management organizations are also included in the North Dakota Disaster Act of 1985. The act specifies each county should have an emergency management organization and each city should either provide its own emergency management entity or take part in the corresponding county organization. These county or city organizations are to have a local disaster/emergency plan.

Emergency response is a complex web of federal, state, and local entities working together. Many emergencies can affect the movement of freight. North Dakota has key players to mitigate such emergency situations, and planning and coordination of these resources is vital. The key emergency- related entity in North Dakota is the Department of Emergency Services (DES). This agency is comprised of the Division of Homeland Security and the Division of State Radio Communications. Two important emergency/disaster documents have been prepared by the DES. The North Dakota Disaster Procedures Handbook is a guide for local and tribal governments in order to become eligible for emergency or disaster aid.

The Basic Document of the North Dakota Emergency Operations Plan is the other vital North Dakota emergency management document. The purpose of this plan is as follows: ―The State Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) defines responsibilities for emergency operations of departments and agencies of state government. The State EOP ensures a coordinated effort by federal, state, local, and tribal governments and volunteer agencies in the management of emergencies or disasters of national, state, or local scope to save lives and to protect property and the environment.‖ The document describes ten functional categories and includes information on various levels of coordinators for each. Figure 3.2 and Table 3.2 show this information obtained from the EOP.

Figure 3.2 North Dakota DES Coordination and Control Relationships Chart

Table 3.2 Functional Annex Chart

Table 3.2 (Continued)

According to this document, there are various departments responsible for functional coordination of transportation-related emergencies as well as departments responsible for task coordination. The functional coordinator for the transportation emergency category is the North Dakota Department of Transportation. Task coordinators for transportation emergency operations are the Governor, Civil Air Patrol, Emergency Management, National Guard, Aeronautics Commission, Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Division of Community Services, Game and Fish Department, Highway Patrol, Geological Survey, State Radio Communication, and Parks and Recreation Department. A few examples of tasks listed as part of this document under the Transportation Annex category are:  Activate transportation staff  Implement emergency highway traffic regulations  Alert the public to transportation-related hazards  Provide transportation resources for movement of state and local emergency personnel, supplies, and equipment  Coordinate construction resources to respond to transportation-related emergencies or disasters

Another example of emergency operations coordination is the City of Fargo’s ―Emergency Operations Plan‖ document. This plan is laid out similarly to the statewide Basic Document, including a function annex chart that describes various local departments to be involved in various emergency situations. Focusing on emergency situations that would hinder freight movement, the main annex is Engineering and Public Works. The City Engineer/Director of Operations is the functional coordinator of this category. The disasters related to this category and functions involved with emergency management are included (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 Engineering & Public Works Emergency Operations Plan for the City of Fargo Engineering & Public Works Emergency Operations Plan for the City of Fargo

Disasters Primary Functions Secondary Functions  Bio-terrorism  Engineering services  Traffic control  Hazardous  Utility maintenance  Evacuation Materials  Barricades  Crowd control  Fire/Explosion  Cleanup & debris  Aircraft Accidents removal  Structural Collapse  Temporary solutions  Flood  Contract administration  Power Failure  Damage Assessment  Heavy Rains  Blizzard  Tornado  High Winds  Drought

Source: City of Fargo, Emergency Operations Plan, June 9, 2003

Other departments listed in this document as functional coordinators of tasks relating to transportation and/or freight movement are the Mayor, City Enterprise Director, City Planning Director, Fire Chief, Chief of Police, and F-M Ambulance Director.

North Dakota Emergency Situation Contact List:

 NDSU Extension Service, Coping with Disasters o http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/disaster.htm

 North Dakota Department of Emergency Services P.O. Box 5511 Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5511 (701) 328-8100 (701) 328-8181 FAX http://www.nd.gov/des/  North Dakota Emergency Management Services Association http://www.ndema.org/  ND Health Department, Emergency preparedness http://www.health.state.nd.us/EPR/  Cass Fargo Emergency Management o http://www.cityoffargo.com/cfem/

 Firstlink, CERT – Community Emergency Response Team o http://www.myfirstlink.org/html/community_emergency_response_t.html

 Firstlink, Disaster Response Program o http://www.myfirstlink.org/html/disaster_response_program.html

 City of Fargo, emergency information o http://www.cityoffargo.com/emergency.htm

 Homeland Security, North Dakota Greg Wilz o Homeland Security Coordinator/Emergency Management Director Fraine Barracks Ln, Bldg 35 Bismarck, ND 58504 701-328-8100 http://www.nd.gov/des/homeland/

 Transportation Security Administration o Joel Gutensohn

4. CONCLUSIONS

This study explores freight planning as well as the dynamics of North Dakota’s freight system. A report prepared for the FHWA states, ―Improvement in highway-freight carriage is one of the ways that government can make a truly valuable contribution to the efficiency of the American Economy.‖48 This statement pertains to the United States, but is also applicable to the state of North Dakota. The need for freight transportation improvements is critical in today’s thriving marketplace, and a first important step is to create a strategic plan. The nationwide trend in the movement of freight is expansion at all levels. Freight shipments in the United States have increased from 1993 to 2002 by 45% and the tons of freight moved during the same time period has increased 18%. Freight shipments are projected to double again from 2002 to 2020.

This study focuses on the definition and characteristics of freight, the importance of freight transportation, federal freight policies, and regulations. In addition, the study analyzes freight flows and volumes, major freight generators, shipper preferences, and modal split of freight shipments. It also identifies freight corridors at different levels, identifies roles and responsibilities for freight systems’ key players, examines impediments and capacity constraints facing North Dakota’s current freight system, and outlines potential obstacles to North Dakota’s freight movements in regard to safety and security.

The information in this report is Phase I of a three phase study which provides for identification and discussion of North Dakota’s direction for state freight planning, important freight gateways, and relationships that are instrumental in the state’s economic productivity. The strategic freight planning process for North Dakota has potential benefits for multiple stakeholders, including farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, retailers, warehouse operators, truckers, the public, the North Dakota DOT, and other state and local governmental agencies. Taking a progressive stance in freight movement is a common theme in various corridor studies and freight plans. This knowledge is valuable to those in charge of planning infrastructure, maintenance, and improvements. Except for Minnesota, North Dakota’s bordering states and provinces do not have freight plans. South Dakota, Montana, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all have some form of freight planning in other planning documents, but not a stand-alone document covering all modes. Interviews with transportation officials from the different jurisdictions indicate freight planning in their future. Common themes from discussions include lack of resources, definition, and direction. The states playing the greatest role in North Dakota commerce are those in close proximity (such as Minnesota, South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Washington, Wisconsin and Illinois), but trade spans the entire nation from the West Coast to East Coast.

Existing freight plans commonly address the importance of competitiveness and economic development. Public meetings and coordinated advisory or steering committees are beneficial in transportation planning in order to identify critical issues as well as maximize benefits from project outcomes. All sectors of the system, both public and private, need to collaborate to keep up with economic growth and associated transportation needs. Freight plans should include guidelines for using benefit-cost analysis when embarking on major infrastructure investments. Cooperative efforts to build regional coalitions to improve freight transportation should be ongoing.

Truck transportation plays a vital economic role and is the first and last mode for moving commodities, raw materials, and finished goods. Harmonization in truck size and weight regulations may reduce truck numbers efficient use of the highway system and businesses realizing greater effiencies. Interstate shippers using truck transportation face the complex truck size and weight regulatory environment set

48 Capturing the Full Benefits of Freight Transportation Improvements: A Non-Technical Review of Linkages and the Benefit-Cost Analysis Framework. ICF Consulting, HLB Decision Economics, Louis Berger Group. Federal Highway Administration, May 11, 2001.

73 forth in the Code of Federal Regulation. Except for interstate highways, these regulations are different in every state, which restricts the free flow of goods and may be inefficient. In addition, state and provincial transportation departments and shippers face unique problems in dealing with freight transportation in northern areas. They face the problem of having to restrict weights and axle loadings during spring thaw to prevent damage to the infrastructure. At the same time, farmers and farm input providers are frantically moving seed and fertilizer to plant the state’s farmland. Evaluating the economic impact to business versus potential damage to infrastructure is a difficult task.

Facility clustering is also occurring for some businesses, such as power, ethanol, and malting plants in North Dakota. Although individually the plants may have only minimal impact to the infrastructure, collectively they have the potential to generate a considerable amount of motor carrier freight.

Imbalances of inbound and outbound freight present problems for different transportation sectors. For instance, it is estimated that for every eight truckloads of incoming less-than-truckload freight, about one is shipped out. The imbalance leaves regional and local less than truckload (LTL) transportation companies with the decision of whether to run empty or dead head, which is expensive, or try to hire independent truckers to bring the freight to their terminals. Containerized intermodal faces the opposite problem where there are relatively small amounts of inbound intermodal freight but some demand for outbound. The results are inefficient movements of equipment, and often a lack of adequate service, and high rates. This lack of intermodal rail service provides for expensive delivery of LTL freight to rural areas in North Dakota and, although entities such as FedEx and UPS do provide service to rural areas, it is not comparable to the same service in metro areas.

Estimates of freight flows of motor carriers and freight generators identification is required. In some instances data are not available. Due to methodological survey techniques used to make state-based estimates at the national level, accuracy can be problematic for lower populated states such as North Dakota. Various non-proprietary sources provide valuable freight movement data on a larger scale. However, none provide specific, local-road level data that are needed for state transportation planning. Many states have used proprietary freight data developed by Global Insight-TRANSEARCH for planning purposes. Global Insight-TRANSEARCH provides the largest number of samples for truck shipments to the county level and offers a more detailed and scientific approach to freight movement.

All transportation modes need to be included when considering transportation planning or infrastructure improvements. Strategic planning is an important first step in bringing together stakeholders with a vested interest in freight transportation. Also, a new emphasis is evolving in transportation safety and security. Unpredictable events may interrupt freight movements and many organizations play a role in emergency transportation, including emergency services agencies, such as fire departments, ambulance services, law enforcement, and homeland security. Various transportation agencies, like state DOTs, local highway, public works, and traffic engineering organizations, are also involved.

REFERENCES

Adams, Teresa M., et al. Upper Midwest Freight Corridor Study – Executive Summary. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center, March 31, 2005.

Baird, Malcolm E., Kristen E. Shepherd, Mark Abkowitz and Fred Wegmann. Transportation and Emergency Services: Identifying Critical Interfaces, Obstacles and Opportunities. July 2005.

Basic Document of the North Dakota Emergency Operations Plan. North Dakota Division of Emergency Management, Bismarck, ND. 2003.

Beagan, Daniel and Lance Grenzeback. Freight Impacts on Ohio’s Roadway System – Executive Summary and Introduction. Cambridge Systematics, June 2002.

Burruss, Richard Duke et al. U.S. 83 Texas Study Corridor – FHWA Economic Development Highway Initiative: Border Crossings and Rural Communities. TRB 2003 Annual Meeting Proceedings.

Capturing the Full Benefits of Freight Transportation Improvements: A Non-Technical Review of Linkages and the Benefit-Cost Analysis Framework. ICF Consulting, HLB Decision Economics, Louis Berger Group. Federal Highway Administration, May 11 2001.

Carter Burgess. Minot Intermodal Feasibility Study, July, 2004.

Cass/ProLogis, 14th Annual State of Logistics Report, June 2, 2003.

City of Fargo Emergency Operations Plan. Formally adopted by the Fargo City Commission June 9, 2003.

Clark, Michael L., Eric L. Jessup, and Kenneth L. Casavant. Freight Truck Origin and Destination Study: Methods, Procedures and Data Dictionary. SFTA Research Report #2, December 2002.

County Business Patterns. U.S. Census Bureau, 2004. http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html

Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), Freight Analysis Framework. Freight Management and Operations, U. S. Department of Transportation, 2002 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/index.htm. Accessed September 2006.

Freight Transportation: Improvements and the Economy. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, June 2004.

Freight Shipments in America: Preliminary Highlights from the 2002 Commodity Flow Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

General Accounting Office, ―Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning and Financing Limitations‖, December 2003.

Global Insight North American Trade and Transportation www.globalinsight.com/ProductsServices/ProductDetail1024.htm

Hazardous Materials Requirements. North Dakota Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.nd.gov/dlhazardousmaterial.html Accessed January 5, 2007.

Ivanov, Barb and Elizabeth Stratton. Washington Transportation Plan Update: Freight Movement, Draft. Washington State Department of Transportation, June 20, 2005.

Kadrmas Lee & Jackson. Feasibility, Economic Impacts and Implementation of the Northern Plains Commerce Center, September, 2004.

Leeper, Cambridge, and Campbell. Grand Forks Intermodal Study and Implementation Plan. McLean, VA, June 1996.

Mark Berwick, John Bitzan, Junwook Chi, Mark Lofgren. Strategic Freight Analysis; The Role of Intermodal Container Transportation in North Dakota, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, November 2002.

Mark Berwick, John Bitzan, Junwook Chi, Mark Lofgren. Strategic Freight Analysis; Agriculture Sector, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, October, 2001.

Mark Berwick, Mark Lofgren, Junwook Chi. Strategic Freight Analysis; Regional Strategic Freight Study on Motor Carrier Issues, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, June, 2005. www.ugpti.org/conference/pdf/FinalReport.pdf

Minnesota Statewide Freight Plan. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations. May 2005.

North Dakota Department of Commerce, 2007. http://www.ndcommerce.com/index.html

North Dakota Disaster Act of 1985. Chapter 37-17.1 Emergency Services. Accessed online August 30th, 2006. http://www.nd.gov/des/documents/

North Dakota Disaster Procedures Handbook. North Dakota Division of Emergency Management, Bismarck, North Dakota. 2003.

North Dakota Grain Industry (Grain Trax). http://www.ugpti.org/research/agtrans/graintrax.php. Accessed June 2006.

North Dakota Public Service Commission. Historic North Dakota Grain Elevators. http://www.psc.state.nd.us/commission/. Accessed October 25, 2006.

North Dakota State Profile. Federal Highway Administration, FAF2. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/state_info/faf2/pdfs/nd.pdf.

North Dakota State Rail Plan Update, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, July 2006.

Northern Plains-Pacific Freight Corridor Profile I: Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and Washington. Northwest Center for Regional Freight Mobility. Draft Document. Prepared by North Dakota State University, Washington State University, University of Washington, March 2006.

Ostria Sergio J., ICF Consulting, ―2010 and Beyond: A Vision of America’s Transportation Future‖

Protecting America’s Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels: The Role of State DOTs in Homeland Security. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), January 2005.

Transportation Invest in America, Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report- American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Vachal, Kimberly and Tamara VanWechel. Annual North Dakota Elevator Marketing Report, 2004-05. North Dakota State University, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute. UGPTI Publication No. 173, November 2005.

Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey. United States Census Bureau, Service Sector Statistics Division, Transportation Characteristics Branch. http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/2002.html

Wilbur Smith Associates. Louisiana Statewide Transportation Plan: Statewide Intermodal Freight Planning. Presented at Transportation Research Board, January 2005.

APPENDIX A. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction and Background

Creating and implementing a strategic freight plan will help North Dakota maintain and improve its economic competitiveness. The linkage among economic stability, growth, and transportation demands a proactive, strategic freight plan. A report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) states, ―Improvement in highway-freight carriage is one of the ways that government can make a truly valuable contribution to the efficiency of the American Economy‖ (ICF Consulting 2001). This statement pertains to the United States, but is also applicable to the state of North Dakota.

―Clearly, highway investments that increase capacity and/or speed and reduce crashes will improve the performance of trucks‖ (ICF Consulting, 2001). Increasing truck performance is one way to improve freight transportation, but all modes used in freight movements must be considered. Trucks, along with rail, barge, ocean vessels, air, and pipelines carry freight from origin to destination. The transportation of freight may be a simple one mode network or an intermodal network involving multiple modes. The need for freight transportation improvements is critical in today’s thriving marketplace. However, the first step is to create a strategic plan. The question is where and how to start when looking at this multi-faceted issue.

Federal Freight Policies & Regulations

Framework for a National Freight Policy, Drafted April 10, 200649

The U.S. Department of Transportation proposed this initiative to include the broad scope of the freight industry, including both the private and public sectors.

Vision statement: ―The United States freight transportation system will ensure the efficient, reliable, safe and secure movement of goods, and support the nation’s economic growth while improving environmental quality. Objectives: 1. Improve the operations of the existing freight transportation system 2. Add physical capacity to the freight transportation system in places where investment makes economic sense 3. Use pricing to better align all costs and benefits between users and owners of the freight system and to encourage deployment of productivity-enhancing technologies 4. Reduce or remove statutory, regulatory, and institutional barriers to improved freight transportation performance 5. Proactively identify and address emerging transportation needs 6. Maximize the safety and security of the freight transportation system 7. Mitigate and better manage the environmental, health, energy and community impacts of freight transportation.‖

Transportation Policy: Evolution of Federal Freight Transportation Policy

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations The freight mandates of ISTEA and TEA-21 help to focus state and federal attention on freight issues. The FHWA report titled Transportation Policy: Evolution of Federal Freight Transportation Policy

49 http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/freight_policy_framework.html

A-1 states ―There is a growing awareness at the state and local level of the importance of freight transportation and a push to re-link state and local transportation investment, especially freight transportation investment, to economic development.‖

The public sector process for planning, financing, and delivering freight improvements has proven to be slow and rigid, compared to demands and expectations from the private sector. Since ISTEA, the state and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) focus has been regional and local. On the other hand, private entities have focused more on national and global issues. This disparity has promoted states and MPOs to informally create initiatives in order to identify regional freight transportation needs.

―From the viewpoint of states and MPOs, ISTEA, and TEA-21 created new freight programs (e.g., TIFIA, RRIF); permitted states to expand their funding of highway operations to reduce congestion. This also gave states the flexibility both to allocate funds to a wide variety of projects, within limits, and shift funds among categories within the Highway Trust Fund.‖ Using these programs along with innovative financing methods, advancements have been made on freight projects with limited financial resources. ISTEA and TEA-21 mandates are being utilized for improving the productivity of the nation’s freight transportation system.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 created a vision for surface transportation in America. The bill attempts to refocus surface transportation programs to address the changing needs of transportation. Intentions were to create jobs, reduce congestion, rebuild infrastructure, maintain mobility, and address environmental concerns. Ultimately, enactment of ISTEA intended to ensure America's ability to compete in the global marketplace.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

This act authorizes the federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the years 1998-2003.

TEA-21 builds on the initiatives established in ISTEA. It combines current programs with new initiatives. This act promotes the safety enhancement, protection and betterment of communities and the natural environment, and economic growth and global competitiveness through efficient and flexible transportation.

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

SAFETEA-LU is a surface transportation investment of $244.1 billion. President George W. Bush signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act on August 10, 2005. This act authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the five-year period 2005-2009. This bill covers an array of surface transportation issues, including numerous freight provisions.

A-2

State and Provincial Freight Planning

State freight plans are an integral part of state DOT planning. Except for Minnesota, North Dakota’s bordering states and provinces do not have ―Freight Plans.‖ South Dakota, Montana, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all have some form of freight planning in other planning documents, but not a stand-alone document covering all modes. Telephone interviews with transportation officials from the different jurisdictions within the region indicate that freight planning as a separate entity is in their future. A common theme from discussion is that the time horizon and definition of a freight plan may have to be determined. The definition of a freight plan or freight planning may vary depending on the point of view. Table A.1 provides a matrix of other state freight plans.

Table A.1 Other State Freight Plans Matrix State State Freight Defines Identifies General Specific Task Flow & goals freight Recommendations Recommendations Document Infrastructure movement name Description issues Delaware Delaware X X X X X Freight and Goods Movement Plan Technical Report, 2004

Louisiana Louisiana X X X Statewide Transportation Plan: Statewide Intermodal Freight Planning: Presentation, 2005 Maine Maine X X X X X Integrated Freight Plan, 2002

Minnesota Minnesota X X X X Statewide Freight Plan, 2005

Ohio Freight Impacts X X X X on Ohio’s Roadway System, 2002 Washington Washington X X X X Transportation Plan Update: Freight Movement: Draft, 2005

A-3

State Freight Plans Best Practices

Delaware o Delaware Freight and Goods Movement Plan Technical Report, June 2004. o www.deldot.gov/static/pubs_forms/freight_plan/technical_report.pdf. o Delaware Department of Transportation, Division of Planning. o Intended to define tasks/investments for the Delaware DOT in order to improve freight movement in the state. It identifies freight movement issues, describes solutions to encourage efficient and economical movement of freight and also points out priorities for improvements. o Project advisory committee assisted in plan. o Included DOT Freight-related responsibilities in tables o Freight description and trends section. o Chapters on each mode (truck, rail, water, air, intermodal). o Recommended Plan of Action.

Louisiana o Louisiana Statewide Transportation Plan: Statewide Intermodal Freight Planning. Wilbur Smith Associates. Presented at Transportation Research Board, January 2005. o www.dot.state.oh.us/planning/Freight/TRB%20Presentation/LouisDOT.PDF. o Louisiana (as well as various other states) addresses freight planning within their Statewide Transportation Plans. o Louisiana’s Statewide Transportation Plan addresses both passenger transportation and freight transport issues. o The freight portion of this project addresses freight in the following ways: o New travel demand model that includes a truck factor, o Commodity movement analysis, o Proactive freight component in public involvement, o Freight factors in project prioritization, o Major initiatives for freight planning. o Freight movement evaluation. o Extensive outreach such as transportation conferences, newsletters, a website, public meetings and advisory councils. o Recommendations are based on prioritization factors.

Maine o Maine Integrated Freight Plan, February 2002 o Prepared for Maine DOT by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. o Goals: . Develop updated freight profile for Maine. . Build relationships with and identify concerns of public and private freight stakeholders. . Show progress and lessons learned from 1998 Integrated Freight Plan IFP. . Make recommendations about improvements for freight and changes to ME’s freight planning program. o Collected freight data: . Existing. . Mailed surveys to shippers/receivers, carriers and municipalities and personal interviews. . Held focus groups for freight stakeholders.

A-4 o Freight Transportation Advisory Committee FTAC was advisory group for the project (freight advisory committee).

Minnesota o Minnesota Statewide Freight Plan, May 2005. o http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ofrw/statewidePlan.html. o Description of state’s infrastructure (rail, truck, etc.). o Developed a vision and goals/policy direction framework (see below). o Freight Policy Framework: . Improve statewide infrastructure, . Improve National/international infrastructure, . Enhance operations and safety, . Enhance freight integration, . Strengthen partnerships, . Streamline regulatory activities, o Freight Advisory Committee and Statewide Freight Plan Steering Committee assisted in process. o Includes recommended freight policies and strategies . o Future work – an Action Plan.

Ohio o Freight Impacts on Ohio’s Roadway System. Beagan, Daniel and Lance Grenzeback. Cambridge Systematics, June 2002. o As part of its statewide transportation plan, Access Ohio, the state needed to address freight as a major component. o Objectives included: . Describe freight movements in the state, . Assess future changes in freight movement, . Make recommendations. o Proprietary TRANSEARCH data. o Commodity forecasts and case studies were conducted. o Description of findings and recommendations: . Maintaining Ohio’s Macro-Corridors, . Linking Ohio to the Global Economy, . Improving Ohio’s Freight Corridors, . Supporting Local Economic Development.

Washington o Washington Transportation Plan Update: Freight Movement Draft, December 23, 2005. o Washington State Department of Transportation. o Purpose - To support Washington state decision-makers in making strategic investments in freight transportation. o Organized in 3 parts: . Washington role as a gateway state, . How freight supports Washington’s regional economies, . Role of the local distribution system. o Includes 12 + case studies. o 12 specific freight-related investment recommendations. o Touches on detailing all transportation modes. o Sectioned into regions & major corridors.

A-5

Existing State Freight Plan Summaries

When considering North Dakota as part of an economic region, twelve northwest states are interrelated. The Northern Plains-Pacific Northwest (NORPAC) corridor has been defined by the Northwest Center for Regional Freight Mobility. The states included in this region are Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Northern Illinois. The corridor includes Chicago at the eastern edge, which is a major U.S. freight hub and one interrelated to North Dakota freight movements. The western edge of this region is made up of Washington and Oregon with their ports. These Pacific Northwest ports are an important gateway for international trade for NORPAC states, including North Dakota. A main objective of this project is to enlighten decision makers of similarities in the economies and transportation systems of the region’s states. Information on current and future freight flows, data needs, and planning issues will be beneficial to decision makers at various governmental levels. This is also true when concentrating on North Dakota’s freight movement network.

Upper Midwest Freight Corridor Study – Executive Summary. Adams, Teresa M., et al. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center, March 31, 2005.

The Midwest Freight Corridor is defined as the region that borders the western Great Lakes. States included in this region are Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. As freight shipments continue to increase in this region, the issue of congestion and capacity need to be addressed. Six states participated in the first phase of this study, which was a collection of inventory and data to establish a regional freight transportation plan. Phase I focused on the following issues: Performance Metrics, Best Practices, Usage and Capacity, Administrative Issues, and a Data Reporting Site. A main component of this project was that it be a multi-state and multi-jurisdictional partnership of both private and public sectors. Coordination of private and public is important in determining important freight issues, but also in creating a vision for improvement, and ultimately implementing a successful plan for improvement. More simply, the report describes the regions’ freight flows and addresses how to improve them.

Minnesota Statewide Freight Plan. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations. May 2005.

The state of Minnesota created a plan for freight transportation, which was completed in 2005. This multimodal plan identifies trends, needs, and issues for Minnesota’s freight system. Included in the report are overviews of current freight, future freight forecasts, freight bottlenecks in the state, existing freight programs, policy trends, and framework for performance measurement. The plan was created as a guide for improving the state’s freight network and gives action recommendations for the DOT and other freight transportation players. This plan lays out six policy direction/recommendations. The policy recommendations have more specific strategies as well as applicable performance measures and indicators. The six directions are: o Improve the condition, connectivity, and capacity of statewide freight infrastructure. o Improve the condition, connectivity, and capacity of national and international freight infrastructure serving Minnesota. o Enhance the operational performance and safety of statewide freight systems. o Enhance integration of freight into regional and state transportation planning and investment decisions.

A-6

o Strengthen partnerships to address significant freight issues. o Streamline and improve the effectiveness of motor carrier regulatory activities.

Freight Impacts on Ohio’s Roadway System. Beagan, Daniel and Lance Grenzeback. Cambridge Systematics, June 2002.

As part of its statewide transportation plan, Access Ohio, the state needed to address freight as a major component. The objectives of this report are to describe freight movements in the state, assess future changes in freight movement, and make recommendations. The report uses proprietary TRANSEARCH data to develop truck flow methodology. Using this methodology, an analysis of the current truck freight flow was completed to create a thorough understanding of volumes and types of data moving in the state. Next, commodity forecasts and case studies were conducted. A description of findings, along with recommendations is presented in four sections: Maintaining Ohio’s Macro-Corridors, Linking Ohio to the Global Economy, Improving Ohio’s Freight Corridors, and Supporting Local Economic Development.

U.S. 83 Texas Study Corridor – FHWA Economic Development Highway Initiative: Border Crossings and Rural Communities. Burruss, Richard Duke et al. TRB 2003 Annual Meeting Proceedings.

Funding for this project came from the Economic Development Highway Initiative through the Federal Highway Administration. This funding opportunity targeted economically disadvantaged regions to find highway improvements that may be necessary to improve local and regional economic development. More specifically, the objective was to determine economic development benefits to the region from highway improvements. The research work plan was divided into four segments. These include socioeconomic profile, industry sector analysis, transportation improvement concept, and economic development implications. Empirical and anecdotal information, along with data from interviews with stakeholders, were used for analysis. Although this study focused on transportation for an entire corridor versus just freight movement, the area has parallels to North Dakota that are applicable to a strategic freight plan. U.S. 83 includes Laredo, which has a port of entry used for overland trade with Mexico. One of the major industries traded in this area is agriculture, which is also an important focus for North Dakota. In addition, much of the area covered is rural, which is applicable for much of our state.

Louisiana Statewide Transportation Plan: Statewide Intermodal Freight Planning. Wilbur Smith Associates. Presented at Transportation Research Board, January 2005.

Louisiana’s Statewide Transportation Plan addresses both passenger transportation and freight transport issues. The freight portion of this project addresses freight in the following ways: o New travel demand model that includes a truck factor, o Commodity movement analysis, o Proactive freight component in public involvement, o Freight factors in project prioritization, o Major initiatives for freight planning.

Freight movement evaluation includes analyzing the type of freight moved, the volume of freight moved, and where this freight moves (including outbound and inbound). This plan initiated extensive outreach. Some of the outreach activities are transportation conferences, newsletters, a website, public meetings, and advisory councils. Four revenue scenarios resulting from the research offer different potential opportunities for Louisiana. Freight initiative summaries and recommendations are based on prioritization factors. These factors are travel demand, safety, freight accommodation, and economic development. Washington Transportation Plan Update: Freight Movement, Draft. Ivanov, Barb and Elizabeth Stratton. Washington State Department of Transportation, June 20, 2005.

A-7

The Washington State Department of Transportation created a Freight Movement Plan Update based on three main, integral components. These components that make up the state’s freight system are global gateways, regional economies, and the retail and wholesale distribution system. The role of this transportation plan is to help guide decision makers in supporting the state’s strategic investment plan in the freight transportation system. As most state freight plans, Washington’s plan includes an analysis of current freight movements. It also includes a variety of case studies that are applicable to the main freight generators for Washington.

Transportation Invest in America, Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) conducted a study to address the concerns of the nation’s freight-rail transportation system. The study was initiated by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Rail Transportation (SCORT) and is one of five ―bottom line‖ reports on the investment needs of the transportation modes. The report indicates that ―trucks move most of the nation’s freight and will continue to do so into the future.‖ The report also states that ―freight rail is critical to the freight transportation system, the competitiveness of many industries, and the economies of most states.‖

AASHTO lists the following public benefits of the freight-rail system: Transportation System Capacity and Highway Cost Savings, Economic Development and Productivity, International Trade Competitiveness, Environmental Health and Safety, and Emergency Response. The conclusion is that relatively small additional investments in the nation’s freight rail system can be leveraged to provide relatively large public benefits.

According to the study, Class I railroads currently are investing around $2 billion annually for improvements above and beyond repair and maintenance. This is not sufficient to meet the needs of the base case scenario. If investments do not increase, freight rail market share will decrease while transportation and highway system costs increase over the next 20 years. The study concludes that the public sector and the private freight transportation community must advance public policy options that improve the capacity, productivity, and security of the freight-rail system as an integral part of the national freight transportation system. More information on the findings of the AASHTO report can be found in Appendix C.

Literature Review Important Findings

Competitiveness

Existing freight plans commonly address the importance of competitiveness. Taking a progressive stance in freight movement is a common theme in various corridor studies and freight plans. Economic viability is dependent on regional, national, and international competitiveness improvements. To be a player in these markets, system-wide efficiency is necessary. Transportation is fundamental in these coordination efforts. ―Ohio depends heavily on the national freight transportation system to import and export goods to and from the region, the nation, and the global economy‖ (Ohio 2002). The Minnesota DOT also emphasizes the importance of competitiveness: ―An efficient freight system is an essential ingredient for economic development and for enhancing the State’s economic competitiveness in the national and global marketplace‖ (Minnesota 2005). The NORPAC Profile I report illustrates global competitiveness with an example. The report states the U.S. grain industry is globally competitive, which is greatly due to the efficient grain transportation system (2006).

A-8

Collaboration

The integrated freight transportation network is a combination of various modes. Each mode is maintained and regulated differently. Railroads, a major player in North Dakota, are privately owned. As stated by the Central Corridors Freight Committee, ―Only a new and unprecedented level of cooperation between and among public and private sector stakeholders holds the potential for attaining the coordination necessary to achieve such an integrated system.‖ All sectors of the system, both public and private, will need to work together to keep up with economic growth and associated transportation needs. The Upper Midwest Freight Corridor Study (Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Research Executive Summary, November 2004) brings up the importance of collaboration between the private and public sectors in addressing the issue of increasing freight movements. Addressing the projected freight growth requires collaboration and communication between these groups. One recommendation from the Upper Midwest Freight Corridor Study is to ―Continue efforts to build a regional coalition to improve freight transportation‖ (2005). It is suggested these cooperative efforts be ongoing. Minnesota’s Statewide Freight Plan also addresses this highlighting the need to strengthen partnerships for dealing with freight concerns (2005).

Increasing Freight Movements

Over the next 20 years, freight volumes are forecasted to double (Ohio 2002). From 1993 to 2002 the value of freight shipments in the United States increased by 45% from $7.2 to $10.5 trillion. For the same time period, tons of freight moved increased from 13 billion tons to 16 billion. This is an 18% increase. The major modes of freight transportation (truck, rail, water, and air) all increased in both tonnage and value from 1993 to 2002. Truck dominates modal share by ton, accounting for almost 9,200 million tons of commercial freight activity in the United States in 2002. This is approximately 60% of all commercial freight in 2002. In the same year, water accounted for 2,345 million tons of freight and rail about 1,900 million tons. Although air only carried 10 million tons of freight, that is a 46% increase from 1993 to 2002. (Freight Shipments 2004). Washington State’s Transportation Plan Update on Freight Movement indicates freight volumes for the state are increasing at twice the rate as population and traffic growth. The factors stated as contributing to this increase are globalization, competitive industry trends, and new technologies (Inanov and Stratton 2005). As stated in the Upper Midwest study, ―Demand on the region’s transportation system is stretching infrastructure to, and in many cases beyond, capacity‖ (2005). This statement is applicable to freight corridors across the nation.

Stakeholders

Investments in transportation infrastructure can be large, and return on that investment needs to be determined. Identifying all components and all costs and benefits need to be determined when analyzing or determining benefits and costs of any infrastructure project. When creating any type of strategic plan, benefit-cost analysis can play an important role. Benefit-cost models that have been used for highway investment purposes usually use benefit valuation equal to travel time. The ICF Consulting report prepared for FHWA points out there is a major component missing with this method (ICF Consulting 2001). The benefits or costs to the shipper (the owner of the freight) are excluded. FHWA states both first-order and second-order benefits need to be considered in freight transportation analysis and planning (2001). In their report, ―Freight Transportation: Improvements and the Economy,‖ first-order benefits are described as ―immediate cost reductions to carriers and shippers in terms of reduced transit times and reliability.‖ Second-order benefits are ―improved efficiencies and other cost reductions that occur because a firm is able to consolidate production and warehousing facilities.‖ This illustrates the notion that multiple stakeholders can benefit from improved freight transportation.

A-9

Not only can truckers more efficiently deliver freight, thus haul more products while generating more revenue, but the shipper of the freight and the receiver of the freight also benefit. On the starting end, freight shippers can get their product shipped more quickly, resulting in better inventory flow, an increase in reliability, and, again, higher revenues. At the receiving end of the shipment, the customer demanding the product gets their product more quickly, making their inventory process less stressful and more efficient. These are only a few of the groups involved, but the benefits can extend even further. Development of a strategic freight plan for North Dakota has potential benefits for multiple stakeholders, including farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, retailers, warehousers, truckers, the public, NDDOT, and various state and local governmental entities.

Literature Review Methodology & Data Collection

Strategic studies often are implemented in multiple phases. The first stage commonly deals with literature review, data collection, and issue background & description. The analysis of data is part of a later phase. This is true for the Upper Midwest Freight Corridor Study (Adams et al. March 2005). This study was divided into four phases, starting with Inventory/Data Collection. The next three stages included Needs Analysis, Action Plans, and Implementation & Ongoing Efforts. The Northwest Center for Regional Freight is also implementing freight study efforts in phases. A draft has been developed which profiles a portion of the NORPAC region. As with the Midwest Corridor study mentioned above, this paper profiles part of the region using available data to provide a thorough economic description. Ohio’s Freight Impacts study also was prefaced by a review of freight trends. After analyzing freight flows and four different case studies, recommendations were made to the state DOT.

Public meetings with all relevant stakeholders provide feedback and oversight from local interests. The U.S. 83 Texas Corridor Study used community stakeholders’ meetings in two regions encompassing the study area (Burruss et al. 2003). Invited to these public meetings were business owners, local government representatives, and community leaders. Two advisory committees were formed as a result of the meetings in order to create a work plan for the research. Steering committees and advisory committees, similar to those mentioned above, were also used for the Upper Midwest Freight study (2005). These committees include representatives from two Canadian provinces, Manitoba and Ontario, state DOTs, and several federal officials. Others included in these groups are from metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), port authorities, private firms, and other interested groups. The purpose of bringing these people together is to provide ideas, perspective, and knowledge in order to help guide the project. Public meetings and coordinated advisory or steering committees are beneficial in transportation planning in order to identify critical issues as well as maximize benefits from project outcomes.

Various data sources are available for freight movements. Data for rail, air, and water are easily accessible. Data on truck movements, however, is limited. The main data sources related to truck freight transportation are the Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) and the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). Both of these sources are available to the public. The FHWA’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) is also a rich data source for freight movements. These three sources are described below in more detail. Another primary source for freight movements is the proprietary TRANSEARCH database from Reebie and Associates. While each of these provides valuable data on a larger scale, none provide specific, local-road level data that are needed for state transportation planning. Clark et al. prepared a Freight Truck Origin and Destination Study defining methodology for gathering such specific trucking information for the state of Washington. In order to obtain statewide truck movement data, survey methods were used to gather information from truck drivers and trucking firms. Thirty-one survey site locations were utilized at weight stations and ports of entry. Surveys were conducted throughout the year to include all seasons. Extensive interview team recruitment and training assured consistent data-gathering.

Commodity Flow Survey

A-10

The Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) provides information on U.S. freight movements. The CFS is done as part of the economic census by the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). Corresponding with the economic census timeline, this information is updated every five years with 2002 being the most current. This freight movement data are based on a questionnaire filled out by a sample of establishments in the manufacturing, wholesale, mining, and retail industries. The survey is limited, omitting industries such as agriculture, construction, transportation, and government. Freight movement variables in this data source include primary commodity shipped, value, weight, mode of transport, and destination city, state, and zip code.

Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey

The U.S. Census Bureau compiles the VIUS to provide an overview of private and commercial trucks in the United States. VIUS data are produced at the national and state level. It is conducted once every five years along with the economic census, with 2002 being the last year. Included in this survey are private and commercial trucks that are licensed or registered by July 1 of the survey year in the United States. This is an important source of information for truck movements, as limited data resources are available for this freight-movement mode.

Freight Analysis Framework

The FHWA’s FAF is a collection of data estimating commodity flow information in the United States. FAF1 is the original version, estimating flow numbers for 1998 as well as 2010 and 2020 forecast numbers. FAF2 provides data for 2002 and forecasts up to 2035. Freight movement estimates include activity among U.S. states, sub-state regions, and also international gateways. The Office of Freight Management and Operations of the Federal Highway Administration originally created this database as a tool for the USDOT. Data include shipment commodity, origin and destination points, volume and value, and mode of transport.

Global Insight-TRANSEARCH

The most common and widely used proprietary freight data is developed by Global Insight. Global Insight has a 40-year track record for providing accurate, comprehensive, and objective economic analysis and forecasts. Global Insight’s proprietary database called TRANSEARCH contains access to the most up-to-date freight flow data that include seven transportation modes: Rail (cars and intermodal containers), full truck load, less-than-truckload, private truck, air, and water. TRANSEARCH data are produced every year and include substantial sample shipments for increased accuracy. For example, TRANSEARCH samples 100 million shipments for trucking data. The large number of samples used for compiling this data offer a more detailed and scientific approach to freight movement. In addition, TRANSEARCH breaks down freight flow information to the county level and by 2-digit or 4-digit Standard Transportation Commodity Classification Codes (STCC). Of the 50 states, 35 have used TRANSEARCH for planning purposes.

A-11

Literature Review Method and Data Collection

The previous overview of existing research presents trends, ideas, and methods, which give direction in moving forward with North Dakota’s Strategic Freight Plan. North Dakota can use this information as a guide in pursuing a valuable end product. A high quality Strategic Freight Plan is important to North Dakota and its transportation network.

Existing state freight plans provide a framework and best practices to follow in plan development. A summary of best practices includes:  project advisory committee  define plan vision/goals  state freight movement and trends description  description by mode  description by region and/or major corridor  identifying concerns of public and private stakeholders  identifying freight movement issues and possible improvements  prioritization of improvements  recommend freight policies and strategies  recommended action plan, highlighting priority

In reviewing freight planning literature and existing state freight plans, key issues appear. Freight planning often centers on these issues, which become important themes for successfully improving transportation networks and movement of goods to, from, and within a state. Themes emerge in state freight plans and the planning process. The themes most noted are listed as:  competitiveness  collaboration  increasing freight movement trends  stakeholders

Methodology and data collection for freight planning varies from state to state. Due to the variety of data sources available and variance, information collecting and collaborating can be time-consuming and complex. A systematic review of all available resources is necessary to determine best methodologies for each individual state. Of course, a thorough description of the state’s freight movement is necessary for addressing trends, needs and issues in the transportation network. Options for involving stakeholders, both public and private, exist in determining perceived transportation priorities. Freight movement data from various sources, mostly government entities, can provide objective numbers for freight movements without proprietary fees. It must be noted, however, that benefits and weaknesses exist for all sources. Due to methodological survey techniques used to make state-based estimates at the national level, accuracy can be problematic for lower populated states such as North Dakota.

A-12

APPENDIX B. NORTH DAKOTA FREIGHT DATA AND ECONOMIC EMPLOYMENT CHARATERISTICS

Table B.1 Existing Freight-Related Data Sources Institution Database Data Description Frequency of Internet Address Updates Bureau of Commodity Flow Shipment characteristics by Every 5 years, http://www.census.gov Transportation Survey origin, destination, mode, and 2002 most /svsd/www/cfsdat/200 Statistics, U.S. commodity. In tons, miles, and recent 2cfs.html Department of ton-miles Transportation & U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Trade DataWeb Import and Export Data Ongoing, http://dataweb.usitc.go Commission roughly 4 month v/ lag US Census Bureau County Business Subnational data by industry Annually, http://www.census.gov Patterns 1 year lag /epcd/cbp/view/cbpvie w.html Office of Trade and Tradestats National trade data & State export Quarterly http://ita.doc.gov/td/in industry data dustry/otea/ information/U.S. Department of Commerce US Census Bureau Fed Trade Stats Export/Import Data Annually http://www.census.gov /foreign- trade/statistics/state/da ta/nd.html Bureau of Economic Regional Gross state product & real gross Annually http://www.bea.gov/be Analysis Economic state product a/regional/gsp/ Accounts Federal Highway FAF2 Integration of a variety of freight 2002 http://www.ops.fhwa.d Administration, U.S. sources50 ot.gov/freight/freight_ Department of analysis/faf/index.htm Transportation Statistics Canada and Trade Data Online Canada Trade by Industry Import- Annually http://strategis.gc.ca/sc U.S. Census Bureau Export information _mrkti/tdst/engdoc/tr_ homep.html Bureau of Transstats Border crossings, entries by Annually http://www.transtats.bt Transportation state/port s.gov/BorderCrossing. Statistics, U.S. aspx Department of Transportation ND Public Service ND Licensed Elevator Capacity Current http://www.psc.state.n Commission Elevator d.us/jurisdiction/grain- Information entities.html

50 The Freight Analysis Framework integrates data from a variety of sources to estimate commodity flows and related freight transportation activity among states, regions, and major international gateways. The original version, FAF1, provides estimates for 1998 and forecasts for 2010 and 2020. The new version, FAF2, provides estimates for 2002 and the most recent year plus forecasts through 2035.

B-1

Table B.2 Industry Gross State Product (Millions of Current Dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 % of Total Total Gross State Product 18,800 20,007 21,597 22,687 100.0% Private industries 15,842 16,831 18,178 19,061 84.0% Agriculture, forestry, 930 1,175 1,615 1,112 4.9% fishing, and hunting Crop and animal 844 1,085 1,511 n/a production (Farms) Forestry, fishing, and 85 91 104 n/a related activities Mining 421 455 464 512 2.3% Oil and gas extraction 135 151 169 n/a Mining, except oil and gas 186 186 188 n/a Support activities for 101 119 107 n/a mining Utilities 532 570 589 644 2.8% Construction 842 834 920 1,048 4.6% Manufacturing 1,934 2,008 2,114 2,366 10.4% Durable goods 1,397 1,466 1,532 1,711 Wood product 85 89 102 n/a manufacturing Nonmetallic mineral 81 85 89 n/a product manufacturing Primary metal 5 6 5 n/a manufacturing Fabricated metal 76 80 83 n/a product manufacturing Machinery 431 435 487 n/a manufacturing Computer and electronic 108 134 161 n/a product manufacturing Electrical equipment 4 4 5 n/a and appliance manufacturing Motor vehicle, body, 472 497 472 n/a trailer, and parts manufacturing Other transportation 64 63 53 n/a equipment manufacturing Furniture and related 32 34 33 n/a product manufacturing Miscellaneous 39 40 42 n/a manufacturing Nondurable goods 537 543 582 655 Food product 341 348 353 n/a manufacturing Textile and textile 5 6 8 n/a product mills Apparel manufacturing 4 5 7 n/a Paper manufacturing 8 10 11 n/a Printing and related 55 58 58 n/a support activities Petroleum and coal 51 32 50 n/a products manufacturing Chemical manufacturing 13 15 17 n/a Plastics and rubber 59 68 78 n/a products manufacturing Wholesale trade 1,441 1,527 1,667 1,813 8.0%

B-2

2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 % of Total Total Gross State Product 18,800 20,007 21,597 22,687 100.0% Retail trade 1,479 1,593 1,669 1,728 7.6% Transportation and 811 787 843 897 4.0% warehousing, excluding Postal Service Air transportation 12 16 26 n/a Rail transportation 312 248 276 n/a Water transportation 1 (L) (L) n/a Truck transportation 329 348 357 n/a Transit and ground 24 26 28 n/a passenger transportation Pipeline transportation 25 33 29 n/a Other transportation and 97 104 108 n/a support activities Warehousing and storage 11 11 19 n/a Information 598 628 697 810 3.6% Publishing including 166 194 215 n/a software Motion picture and sound 9 10 12 n/a recording industries Broadcasting and 368 366 397 n/a telecommunications Information and data 55 59 72 n/a processing services Finance and insurance 1,184 1,318 1,363 1,500 6.6% Federal Reserve banks, 690 786 796 n/a credit intermediation and related services Securities, commodity 70 66 76 n/a contracts, investments Insurance carriers and 417 462 487 n/a related activities Funds, trusts, and other 6 4 4 n/a financial vehicles Real estate, rental, and 1,674 1,699 1,726 1,840 8.1% leasing Real estate 1,531 1,551 1,569 n/a Rental and leasing 143 148 156 n/a services and lessors of intangible assets Professional and technical 660 707 795 855 3.8% services Legal services 117 116 124 n/a Computer systems design 169 171 223 n/a and related services Other professional, 374 420 447 n/a scientific and technical services Management of 156 160 170 190 0.8% companies and enterprises Administrative and waste 324 338 332 359 1.6% services Administrative and 299 311 305 n/a support services Waste management and 25 27 27 n/a remediation services Educational services 78 84 87 93 0.4% Health care and social 1,705 1,819 1,946 2,069 9.1%

B-3

2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 % of Total Total Gross State Product 18,800 20,007 21,597 22,687 100.0% assistance Ambulatory health care 689 733 782 n/a services Hospitals and nursing and 886 946 1,011 n/a residential care facilities Social assistance 130 139 153 n/a Arts, entertainment, and 100 118 122 125 0.6% recreation Performing arts, 32 40 40 n/a museums, and related activities Amusements, gambling, 68 78 81 n/a and recreation Accommodation and food 500 523 542 565 2.5% services Accommodation 165 168 174 n/a Food services and 335 355 368 n/a drinking places Other services, except 473 487 518 535 2.4% government Government 2,958 3,175 3,419 3,626 16.0% Federal civilian 368 348 407 n/a Federal military 568 649 725 n/a State and local 2,021 2,178 2,286 n/a Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

North Dakota Gross State Product (Millions of current dollars)

$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

Utilities Mining Education Real estateRetail trade Agriculture Information Government Construction Management Manufacturing Transportation Other servicesAdministrative Wholesale trade Accommodation Health and Social Finance & Insurance Arts & Entertainment Professional & Technical

Figure B.1 North Dakota Gross State Product, Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. Department of Commerce

B-4

Table B.3 Industry Key-Complete Category Names

Industry Key – Complete Category Names Government Manufacturing Health care and social assistance Real estate, rental, and leasing Retail trade Wholesale trade Agriculture, forestry and fishing Finance and insurance Construction Transportation and warehousing Professional and technical services Information Utilities Accommodation and food services Other Services Mining Administrative and waste services Management Arts, entertainment and recreation Educational services

B-5

Table B.4 Total U.S. Exports (Origin of Movement) via North Dakota Total U.S. Exports (Origin of Movement) via North Dakota Top 25 Commodities based on 2005 Dollar Values U.S. Export by Origin State. Values in Millions of dollars. Rank Description 2005 2005 Value % Share --- Total North Dakota Exports and % Share of U.S. Total 1,185 0.1 --- Total, Top 25 Commodities and % Share of State Total 852 71.9 1 MECH FRONT-END SHOVEL LOADERS, SELF- 230 19.4 PROPELLED 2 TRACTORS, NESOI 119 10.1 3 MECH SHOVELS EXCAVATORS ETC W 360 DEGREE 93 7.8 SPRSTRUC 4 PARTS AND ATTACHMENTS NESOI FOR DERRICKS 57 4.8 ETC. 5 SEEDERS, PLANTERS AND TRANSPLANTERS 46 3.9 6 SUNFLOWER SEEDS, WHETHER OR NOT BROKEN 29 2.5 7 RAPESEED/COLZA OIL & FRACTIONS, LW ERUCIC 29 2.4 ACID,CRD 8 SOYBEAN OILCAKE & OTH SOLID RESIDUE, 26 2.2 WH/NOT GROUND 9 CRUDE OIL FROM PETROLEUM AND BITUMINOUS 23 2 MINERALS 10 SUNFLOWER-SEED OR SAFFLOWER OIL, REFINE, 21 1.8 FRACT ETC 11 MAGNETIC TAPE UNRECORDED WIDTH 20 1.7 EXCEEDING 6.5 MM 12 PEAS, DRIED SHELLED, INCLUDING SEED 18 1.5 13 PHENOL (HYDROXYBENZENE) AND ITS SALTS 16 1.3 14 SOYBEANS, WHETHER OR NOT BROKEN 15 1.3 15 LENTILS, DRIED SHELLED, INCLUDING SEED 14 1.1 16 OIL (NOT CRUDE) FROM PETROL & BITUM 13 1.1 MINERAL ETC. 17 LOW ERUCIC ACID RAPE/COLZA SEEDS W/NOT 11 1 BROKEN 18 MV TRNSP >TEN PRSNS COM-IGNTN INTR COMB 11 0.9 PIST(DISL) 19 UNRECORDED MAGNETIC DISCS 10 0.8 20 PASS VEH COM-IG INT COM ENG > 2500 CC 10 0.8 21 BEANS NESOI, DRIED SHELLED, INCLUDING SEED 9 0.7 22 LINSEED OILCAKE AND OTH SOLID RESIDUES 8 0.7 W/NT GROUND 23 PARTS OF AIRPLANES OR HELICOPTERS, NESOI 8 0.7 24 TURBOJETS OF A THRUST EXCEEDING 25 KN 8 0.7 25 COMBINE HARVESTER-THRESHERS 8 0.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics

B-6

Table B.5 Exports from North Dakota to Canada: in Thousands of Dollars Item 2003 2004 2005 2005 % of Total Total 475,560 480,208 537,647 100.00% 333 Machinery Manufacturers 143,657 137,317 204,861 38.10% 311 Processed Foods 79,149 98,149 88,113 16.39% 336 Transportation Equipment 48,064 63,189 58,911 10.96% 111 Crop Production 108,257 65,827 44,629 8.30% 325 Chemical Manufactures 14,207 15,137 29,851 5.55% 211 Oil & Gas Extraction 19,520 31,652 23,296 4.33% 326 Plastic & Rubber Products 12,104 14,382 18,608 3.46% 324 Petroleum & Coal Products 568 904 13,275 2.47% 332 Fabricated Metal Products 2,680 4,877 10,599 1.97% 920 Used Merchandise 5,782 4,887 6,362 1.18% 910 Waste & Scrap 4,454 7,565 5,328 0.99% 112 Animal Production 5,635 5,044 4,798 0.89% 335 Elec. Eq., Appliances & Parts 3,979 2,705 3,874 0.72% 990 Spec. Classification Provisions 5,988 4,832 3,854 0.72% 334 Computers & Electronic Prod. 4,428 2,397 3,461 0.64% 322 Paper Products 237 3,836 2,682 0.50% 337 Furniture & Related Products 902 1,549 2,377 0.44% 312 Beverage & Tobacco Products 1,188 2,437 2,143 0.40% 327 Non-Metallic Mineral Mfgs. 907 1,693 1,986 0.37% 323 Printing & Related Products 524 1,242 1,681 0.31% 331 Primary Metal Manufactures 447 1,431 1,681 0.31% 980 Goods Returned to Canada 7,916 6,195 1,436 0.27% 321 Wood Products 619 475 984 0.18% 212 Mining 190 474 655 0.12% 114 Fishing, Hunting, & Trapping 3,196 1,048 562 0.10% 339 Misc. Manufactures 306 281 432 0.08% 511 Publishing Industries 181 258 398 0.07% 314 Non-Apparel Textile Products 128 88 241 0.04% 315 Apparel Manufactures 54 78 237 0.04% 313 Fabric Mill Products 209 171 170 0.03% 316 Leather & Related Products 65 55 107 0.02% 113 Forestry & Logging 19 32 53 0.01%

Source: TradeStats ExpressTM, Office of Trade and Industry Information, Manufacturing and Services, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

B-7

North Dakota Counties, Employees by Industry from County Business Patterns

The following maps depict information from County Business Patterns data. There are maps for North Dakota’s main industries. County Business Patterns are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is comprised of 18 categories. The maps below were created using the most recent data from 2004. The maps depict number of employees for each industry category for each North Dakota county. The top 15 North Dakota industries are summarized for North Dakota in the maps below. As to be expected, many of the most densely employed counties are those in which the largest North Dakota cities are located. Cass, Grand Forks, Burleigh, and Ward counties are the top counties for many of these industries. The two categories that are exceptions are mining and utilities. The top counties for numbers of mining employees are Mercer and Williams. For utilities, Burleigh and Mercer are the peak counties.

Figure B.2 compares the top 15 industries for number of employees. The top category for North Dakota is health care and social assistance with nearly 51,000 employees throughout the state. Retail trade is the second largest category and accommodation and food services is third. These categories account for 19%, 16%, and 10% of total North Dakota employees, respectively. However, it should be noted that the most important industries for this study are those that generate freight. The industries that are of importance for strategic freight planning include retail trade, manufacturing, wholesale trade, construction, transportation and warehousing, mining and forestry, fishing, hunting & agriculture.

ND Employees By Industry

60,000 s e

e 50,000 y o l

p 40,000 m e

f 30,000 o

e 20,000 b m

u 10,000 n 0

e s g e n l g n g g s s g d n d io ce n io in n ie ie a nce ra ce ri ra n ica t n lit n , a t u t ct ra n si si ti a g il rvi ct e ru u Mi ea U in st ta fa l st su ch o rma l t e se u n n te h fo l, mp un ssi d n sa o i re n a h a R o le & ic, a I t co , l fo o C tif w n f g a / Ma h ce n re t o n ci n W n e & , n i so tio a n te sh / a in sci io a fi d F , t st eme re al a e g ry, n rt l a ca o o a n st lth mmo sp e re a co ssi n R Ma o e fe ra F H Ac T Pro

Figure B.2 North Dakota Employees by Industry

B-8

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200 501-1000 0-50 Figure B.3 Accommodation & Food Service Employees by County

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.4 Construction Employees

B-9

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.5 Finance & Insurance Employees

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.6 Forestry, Fishing, Hunting & Agriculture Support Employees

B-10

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200 501-1000 0-50 Figure B.7 Health Care & Social Assistance Employees

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.8 Information Employees

B-11

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.9 Managers of Companies & Enterprises Employees

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200 501-1000 0-50 Figure B.10 Manufacturing Employees

B-12

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.11 Mining Employees

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.12 Professional, Scientific & Technical Employees

B-13

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.13 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing Employees

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200 501-1000 0-50 Figure B.14 Retail Trade Employees

B-14

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.15 Transportation & Warehousing Employees

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 51-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.16 Utilities Employees

B-15

Divide Renville Bottineau Pembina Burke Rolette Cavalier Towner

Pierce Williams Walsh McHenry Ramsey Mountrail Ward

Benson Grand Nelson Forks

McKenzie Eddy McLean Wells Sheridan Foster Griggs Steele Traill Dunn Mercer

Billings Oliver Kidder Burleigh Stutsman Golden Barnes Cass Valley Stark Morton

La Logan Ransom Slope Hettinger Moure Grant Emmons Richland McIntosh Dickey Bowman Adams Sioux Sargent

Key: Number of Employees, County Business Patterns 2004

5000+ 201-500

1001-5000 50-200

501-1000 0-50 Figure B.17 Wholesale Employees

B-16

Table B.6 North Dakota Counties: Employee and Establishment Summary Table by Industry51 Ag, forestry, Accomodation, hunting Mining Utlitities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Retail Transportation food service TOTAL52 Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Adams County 0 0 0 0 10 1 9 7 10 2 41 7 161 18 19 7 60 7 310 49 Barnes County 10 3 0 0 10 2 273 41 776 15 169 33 576 63 159 27 463 37 2,436 221 Benson County 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8 375 7 57 14 59 14 17 10 60 13 579 66 Billings County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 60 2 108 9 171 21 Bottineau County 10 2 86 7 60 1 67 31 68 7 92 17 337 54 32 12 195 32 947 163 Bowman County 10 3 10 2 10 1 59 19 33 7 46 5 160 20 30 7 128 20 486 84 Burke County 10 1 60 9 60 2 15 5 0 0 28 7 73 17 46 9 60 11 352 61 Burleigh County 60 4 60 7 977 13 2,240 292 1,573 71 1,742 148 5,701 375 1,402 75 3,635 149 17,390 1,134 11,41 Cass County 58 18 10 1 163 6 5,644 549 7,475 192 6,145 366 3 644 2,852 224 7,830 314 41,590 2,314 Cavalier County 15 5 0 0 15 3 45 15 60 4 91 13 228 35 72 5 118 19 644 99 Dickey County 10 2 0 10 2 42 18 267 12 123 16 281 44 27 8 141 20 901 122 Divide County 21 4 10 1 10 1 11 5 10 3 39 6 84 14 5 3 60 8 250 45 Dunn County 0 0 10 2 10 2 32 11 175 1 30 6 99 14 12 6 58 10 426 52 Eddy County 10 1 10 1 10 1 7 8 60 2 40 4 92 13 10 1 60 8 299 39 Emmons County 10 2 0 0 60 2 92 20 23 6 60 7 175 26 60 8 86 14 566 85 Foster County 10 2 0 0 60 2 53 17 375 5 102 18 286 33 10 4 149 11 1,045 92 Golden Valley County 0 0 0 0 10 1 6 7 10 1 76 4 129 18 12 4 60 5 303 40 Grand Forks County 60 7 175 2 281 4 1,842 177 1,548 55 1,369 104 5,933 336 840 89 3,593 183 15,641 957 Grant County 10 1 0 0 10 1 4 3 27 4 38 7 57 14 9 4 60 7 215 41 Griggs County 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8 132 4 66 10 52 13 9 6 60 10 337 51 Hettinger County 10 2 0 0 10 3 12 8 10 1 43 6 78 16 20 8 60 10 243 54 Kidder County 0 0 0 0 10 1 15 3 10 3 19 4 71 10 10 2 60 10 195 33

51 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.County Business Patterns, 2004. http://censtats.census.gov 52 * Freight-generating Industries only

B-17

Ag, forestry, Accomodation, hunting Mining Utlitities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Retail Transportation food service TOTAL52 Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. Empl. Establ. LaMoure County 10 4 0 0 60 1 6 4 111 9 126 12 155 26 35 13 94 18 597 87 Logan County 0 0 0 0 10 1 12 8 10 1 71 7 42 9 25 7 60 9 230 42 McHenry County 10 2 10 1 60 1 27 17 60 3 72 8 131 22 18 11 60 9 448 74 McIntosh County 0 0 10 1 10 2 23 10 85 6 56 7 182 26 10 4 53 12 429 68 McKenzie County 10 3 69 10 60 2 107 14 79 5 63 13 157 25 21 8 60 11 626 91 McLean County 10 2 175 1 175 5 52 27 10 5 117 18 237 40 27 10 116 27 919 135 Mercer County 10 2 1,248 5 514 7 111 19 60 5 18 5 462 38 30 9 329 30 2,782 120 Morton County 10 4 0 0 117 6 555 94 956 38 648 52 1,177 99 473 53 611 56 4,547 402 Mountrail County 3 3 10 1 10 1 16 12 175 2 156 14 298 40 60 8 113 32 841 113 Nelson County 10 1 0 0 0 22 12 60 2 78 12 137 25 8 6 60 12 375 70 Oliver County 0 0 175 1 175 1 10 4 21 5 10 1 20 3 12 4 10 4 433 23 Pembina County 9 7 0 0 10 2 97 30 829 19 252 31 562 51 263 23 228 31 2,250 194 Pierce County 10 2 0 0 60 1 77 15 175 2 102 11 275 28 61 11 136 13 896 83 Ramsey County 8 4 0 0 48 3 320 47 160 9 279 29 961 88 63 24 676 45 2,515 249 Ransom County 60 5 0 0 10 1 70 24 235 7 115 10 315 38 13 8 129 22 947 115 Renville County 10 2 60 6 10 1 23 7 10 3 63 14 85 12 10 2 60 11 331 58 Richland County 92 8 60 2 62 3 355 58 2,070 31 273 41 773 81 196 25 938 45 4,819 294 Rolette County 10 4 0 0 0 0 106 28 441 4 88 10 517 50 60 9 402 22 1,624 127 Sargent County 10 2 0 0 0 0 44 13 1,750 7 89 11 124 22 60 9 51 14 2,128 78 Sheridan County 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 60 2 24 6 20 7 6 4 10 8 130 30 Sioux County 0 0 0 0 10 1 10 2 0 0 10 1 28 6 10 2 375 3 443 15 Slope County 0 0 60 1 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 80 5 Stark County 10 4 305 19 60 2 688 89 931 33 452 50 1,603 167 252 50 1,205 73 5,506 487 Steele County 10 1 0 0 0 0 35 8 94 7 60 4 73 9 0 0 60 8 332 37 Stutsman County 60 8 0 0 60 3 248 69 902 24 433 39 1,296 119 409 41 775 58 4,183 361 Towner County 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 7 187 6 51 5 63 16 60 9 52 11 431 54

B-18

B-19

Table B.7 North Dakota New Wealth Creator Businesses, Number Employed by County and Industry53 Agriculture, Industry Forestry, Wholesale Retail Transportation Waste Management, Accommodation, Description54 Hunting Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Trade Trade and Warehousing Remediation food services Industry NAICS code 11 21 22 23 31-33 42 44-45 48-49 56 72 Grand Total Adams 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 89 Barnes 4 0 0 0 689 3 0 0 0 0 696 Benson 0 0 0 0 359 2 0 0 0 0 361 Bottineau 0 0 0 0 150 8 0 0 0 0 158 Bowman 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 Burke 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 14 Burleigh 0 0 1,700 249 2,043 158 12 0 0 0 4,162 Cass 47 0 0 30 10,325 569 155 32 31 55 11,244 Cavalier 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 66 Dickey 7 0 0 3 332 0 0 0 0 0 342 Divide 26 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 36 Dunn 0 0 0 0 262 0 0 0 0 0 262 Eddy 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 42 Emmons 0 0 0 0 33 11 0 0 0 0 44 Foster 8 0 0 0 330 0 0 0 0 0 338 Golden Valley 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 9 Grand Forks 13 0 0 0 2,898 17 357 50 0 0 3,335 Grant 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 53 Griggs 2 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 0 0 172 Hettinger 0 0 0 0 32 2 0 0 0 0 34 Kidder 2 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 29 LaMoure 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 112 Logan 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 McHenry 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 McIntosh 0 0 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 122 McKenzie 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 102 McLean 5 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mercer 0 712 0 0 51 4 0 0 0 0 767 Morton 0 0 0 7 1,082 0 4 0 0 0 1,093 Mountrail 11 0 0 0 130 0 6 0 0 0 147 Nelson 7 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 71 Oliver 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 31 Pembina 20 0 0 0 682 24 0 0 0 0 726 Pierce 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 123 Ramsey 0 0 0 0 434 7 2 0 0 0 443 Ransom 20 0 0 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 318 Renville 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 42

53 Source: North Dakota Department of Commerce. New Wealth Creators Business Database, Accessed October 2006. 54 Freight-generating Industries only

B-20

Agriculture, Industry Forestry, Wholesale Retail Transportation Waste Management, Accommodation, Description54 Hunting Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Trade Trade and Warehousing Remediation food services Industry NAICS code 11 21 22 23 31-33 42 44-45 48-49 56 72 Grand Total Richland 61 0 0 0 2,038 30 4 0 0 0 2,133 Rolette 0 0 0 0 557 0 0 0 0 0 557 Sargent 0 0 0 0 1,763 0 0 0 0 0 1,763 Sheridan 8 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 41 Stark 0 0 0 0 1,160 59 9 0 0 0 1,228 Steele 0 0 0 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 119 Stutsman 17 0 0 0 1,533 8 37 0 0 0 1,595 Towner 0 0 0 0 127 2 0 0 0 0 129 Traill 74 0 0 0 411 51 3 0 0 0 539 Walsh 37 0 0 0 661 13 0 0 0 0 711 Ward 16 0 0 0 803 149 29 0 7 0 1,004 Wells 61 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 110 Williams 35 59 0 0 443 7 2 0 0 0 546 Grand Total 493 781 1,700 289 30,954 1,125 620 82 38 55 36,137

B-21

Table B.8 North Dakota New Wealth Creator Businesses, Number of Establishments by County and Industry55 Agriculture, Transportation Waste Industry Forestry, Wholesale Retail and Management, Accommodation, Description56 Hunting Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Trade Trade Warehousing Remediation food services Industry NAICS Grand code 11 21 22 23 31-33 42 44-45 48-49 56 72 Total Adams 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Barnes 1 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 22 Benson 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 13 Bottineau 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 19 Bowman 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 Burke 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 Burleigh 0 0 1 4 103 6 4 0 0 0 118 Cass 4 0 0 2 220 16 8 2 1 2 255 Cavalier 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 Dickey 1 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 15 Divide 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 6 Dunn 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 Eddy 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Emmons 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 Foster 3 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 12 Golden Valley 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 Grand Forks 1 0 0 0 68 2 2 2 0 0 75 Grant 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 Griggs 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 Hettinger 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 8 Kidder 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 LaMoure 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 Logan 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 McHenry 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 McIntosh 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 McKenzie 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 McLean 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 Mercer 0 1 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 12 Morton 1 0 0 1 49 0 1 0 0 0 52 Mountrail 1 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 8 Nelson 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 Oliver 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7

55 Source: North Dakota Department of Commerce. New Wealth Creators Business Database, Accessed October 2006. 56 Freight-generating Industries only

B-22

Agriculture, Transportation Waste Industry Forestry, Wholesale Retail and Management, Accommodation, Description56 Hunting Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Trade Trade Warehousing Remediation food services Industry NAICS Grand code 11 21 22 23 31-33 42 44-45 48-49 56 72 Total Pembina 4 0 0 0 19 2 0 0 0 0 25 Pierce 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Ramsey 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 0 0 0 11 Ransom 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 Renville 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Richland 2 0 0 0 42 1 1 0 0 0 46 Rolette 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sargent 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 Sheridan 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 Stark 0 0 0 0 52 2 1 0 0 0 55 Steele 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 Stutsman 1 0 0 0 29 1 2 0 0 0 33 Towner 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 Traill 4 0 0 0 19 4 1 0 0 0 28 Walsh 2 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 0 0 20 Ward 2 0 0 0 74 6 6 0 1 0 89 Wells 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 11 Williams 1 1 0 0 36 1 1 0 0 0 40 Grand Total 42 4 1 8 1,010 54 29 4 2 2 1,156

B-23

Table B.9 Number of North Dakota Establishments by Major Industry Industry Code Industry Code Description Total Establishments Total 20,459 11 Forestry, fishing, hunting, and agriculture 155 support 21 Mining 167 22 Utilities 115 23 Construction 2191 31 Manufacturing 714 42 Wholesale trade 1445 44 Retail trade 3460 48 Transportation & warehousing 997 51 Information 393 52 Finance & insurance 1543 53 Real estate & rental & leasing 677 54 Professional, scientific & technical services 1322 55 Management of companies & enterprises 87 56 Admin, support, waste mgt, remediation 800 services 61 Educational services 147 62 Health care and social assistance 1612 71 Arts, entertainment & recreation 375 72 Accommodation & food services 1759 81 Other services (except public administration) 2437 99 Unclassified establishments 63 Source: 2003 County Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau

B-24

Table B.10 Number of ND Wholesale Industry Employees by County County Number of Employees Adams, ND 20-99 Barnes, ND 165 Benson, ND 53 Bottineau, ND 70 Bowman, ND 56 Burke, ND 29 Burleigh, ND 1816 Cass, ND 5775 Cavalier, ND 104 Dickey, ND 120 Divide, ND 39 Dunn, ND 31 Eddy, ND 47 Emmons, ND 49 Foster, ND 94 Golden Valley, ND 69 Grand Forks, ND 1342 Grant, ND 30 Griggs, ND 61 Hettinger, ND 28 Kidder, ND 16 La Moure, ND 156 Logan, ND 70 McHenry, ND 69 McIntosh, ND 67 McKenzie, ND 69 McLean, ND 126 Mercer, ND 18 Morton, ND 338 Mountrail, ND 129 Nelson, ND 83 Oliver, ND 0-19 Pembina, ND 227 Pierce, ND 120 Ramsey, ND 262 Ransom, ND 67 Renville, ND 52 Richland, ND 264 Rolette, ND 83 Sargent, ND 80 Sheridan, ND 20 Sioux, ND 0-19 Stark, ND 495 Steele, ND 42 Stutsman, ND 351 Towner, ND 57 Traill, ND 253 Walsh, ND 351 Ward, ND 1292 Wells, ND 176 Williams, ND 576 Source: 2003 County Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau

B-25

Table B.11 Industry Key-Complete Industry Names Industry Key-Complete Industry Names Health care and social assistance Retail trade Accommodation & food services Manufacturing Wholesale trade Construction Finance & insurance Other services (except public administration) Professional, scientific & technical services Admin, support, waste mgt, remediation services Transportation & warehousing Information Educational services Mining Real estate & rental & leasing Arts, entertainment & recreation Utilities Management of companies & enterprises Forestry, fishing, hunting, and agriculture support Unclassified establishments

B-26

Table B.12 North Dakota-Originated Shipment Characteristics: 2002 Destination State Value Value % Tons Tons % ($Millions) (thousands) North Dakota..... 8384 44.3 64595 73.2 Minnesota...... 3000 15.9 9725 11 Wisconsin...... 616 3.3 2560 2.9 California...... 551 2.9 1336 1.5 Illinois...... 643 3.4 907 1 South Dakota...... 476 2.5 701 0.8 Texas...... 403 2.1 689 0.8 Montana...... 398 2.1 289 0.3 Nebraska...... 163 0.9 281 0.3 Michigan...... 197 1 277 0.3 Iowa...... 218 1.2 263 0.3 Ohio...... 148 0.8 235 0.3 Pennsylvania...... 288 1.5 220 0.2 Tennessee...... 104 0.6 218 0.2 New Mexico...... 27 0.1 173 0.2 Colorado...... 126 0.7 109 0.1 Maryland...... 161 0.9 87 0.1 Georgia...... 189 1 86 0.1 New Jersey...... S S 78 - Oklahoma...... 64 0.3 75 - Idaho...... 47 0.2 70 - Florida...... 118 0.6 63 - Indiana...... 90 0.5 60 - Kentucky...... 33 0.2 28 - Arizona...... 47 0.2 24 - New Hampshire.... S S 19 - Mississippi...... S S 18 - Connecticut...... 43 0.2 6 - West Virginia..... 8 - 6 - South Carolina... 16 - 3 - Source: Commodity Flow Survey

B-27

Table B.13 North Dakota-Terminated Shipment Characteristics: 2002 Origin State Value Value % Tons Tons % ($Millions) (thousands) North Dakota...... 8384 34.9 64595 78.7 Minnesota...... 2810 11.7 4943 6 Wisconsin...... 785 3.3 810 1 Iowa...... 1201 5 749 0.9 Montana...... 136 0.6 590 0.7 Missouri...... 345 1.4 339 0.4 Texas...... 514 2.1 337 0.4 South Dakota...... 377 1.6 285 0.3 California...... S S 150 0.2 Michigan...... 463 1.9 132 0.2 Kansas...... 417 1.7 116 0.1 Wyoming...... 31 0.1 110 0.1 Pennsylvania...... 274 1.1 101 0.1 Ohio...... 483 2 91 0.1 Nebraska...... 149 0.6 91 0.1 North Carolina...... 439 1.8 88 0.1 Arkansas...... S S 79 0.1 Georgia...... 232 1 75 - Kentucky...... 125 0.5 71 - New York...... 308 1.3 69 - Oklahoma...... 127 0.5 55 - Virginia...... 87 0.4 40 - Mississippi...... 41 0.2 28 - New Jersey...... 146 0.6 23 - Connecticut...... 48 0.2 3 - Source: Commodity Flow Survey

B-28

ND Inbound Shipments, by Tons 2002 CFS 1% 1% 3%

1% North Dakota 7% Minnesota Wisconsin Iowa Montana 87% All other states

Figure B.18 North Dakota Inbound Shipments by Tons (Source: 2002 Commodity Flow Survey)

Rail

Parcel, USPS or courier

Other & multiple modes

39% 28% Truck

43% For hire truck

14% Private truck 19%

Figure B.19 Shipment Characteristics by Mode of Transportation for North Dakota: 2002 Commodity Flow Survey Tonnage

B-29

Table B.14 Shipment Characteristics by Mode of Transportation for North Dakota by Tons and Percent Destination State Mode Tons (thous) 02 Tons % 02 North Dakota...... Other and unknown modes 33,904 99.96% Minnesota...... Other and unknown modes 14 0.04% Subtotal 33,918 44.33% North Dakota...... For-hire truck 6914 62.55% Minnesota...... For-hire truck 3119 28.22% Illinois...... For-hire truck 213 1.93% Nebraska...... For-hire truck 182 1.65% South Dakota...... For-hire truck 150 1.36% California...... For-hire truck 141 1.28% Iowa...... For-hire truck 101 0.91% Montana...... For-hire truck 100 0.90% Pennsylvania...... For-hire truck 68 0.62% Texas...... For-hire truck 66 0.60% Subtotal 11,054 14.45% North Dakota...... Private truck 21,466 89.94% Minnesota...... Private truck 2116 8.87% Montana...... Private truck 111 0.47% Illinois...... Private truck 58 0.24% Texas...... Private truck 36 0.15% Kansas...... Private truck 19 0.08% California...... Private truck 16 0.07% New York...... Private truck 16 0.07% Pennsylvania...... Private truck 16 0.07% Georgia...... Private truck 14 0.06% Subtotal 23,868 31.20% North Dakota...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 25 56.82% Minnesota...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 9 20.45% California...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 2 4.55% Montana...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 2 4.55% Illinois...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 1 2.27% Michigan...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 1 2.27% New York...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 1 2.27% Ohio...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 1 2.27% Pennsylvania...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 1 2.27% South Dakota...... Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 1 2.27% Subtotal 44 0.06% North Dakota...... Rail 2149 28.20% Wisconsin...... Rail 1720 22.57% California...... Rail 1176 15.43% Illinois...... Rail 622 8.16% Texas...... Rail 576 7.56% Tennessee...... Rail 196 2.57% Ohio...... Rail 185 2.43% New Mexico...... Rail 171 2.24% Iowa...... Rail 146 1.92% Pennsylvania...... Rail 134 1.76% Michigan...... Rail 123 1.61% Nebraska...... Rail 88 1.15% Louisiana...... Rail 80 1.05% Oregon...... Rail 75 0.98% Montana...... Rail 73 0.96% Oklahoma...... Rail 62 0.81% Georgia...... Rail 45 0.59% Subtotal 7621 9.96% TOTAL 76,505 100.00% Note: Subtotal columns for state are percent of state for each mode. Percent subtotal columns are percent of total ND shipments for each mode. Source: Commodity Flow Survey

Source: Freight Analysis Framework, 2002. FHWA. Figures 60-67 and Tables 26-30.

B-30

Tons (000) 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 - MN SD WI NY KY CA WA IL MT KS TX MO CanadaMexico

Destination state or country

Figure B.20 Destinations of North Dakota-Originated Shipments* * In-state shipments not included

Tons (000) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 MT MN IL SD WI AL IA FL MO OR ID CACanada Mexico

Origin state or country

Figure B.21 Origins of North Dakota-Received Shipments* * In-state shipments not included

B-31

Tons (000) 70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

- Truck Pipeline Rail Other Water Air Truck-rail

Figure B.22 North Dakota In-State Shipments by Mode

Tons (000) 35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

- Pipeline Truck Rail Other Truck-rail Air Water

Figure B.23 North Dakota Out-of-State Shipments by Mode

B-32

Table B.15 FAF2 Modal Complete Categories Mode Complete Category Name Air Air, air & truck Other Other Intermodal, includes U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and courier shipments and all intermodal combinations other than truck & rail and air & truck Pipeline Pipeline & unknown Rail Rail Truck Truck Truck-rail Truck & rail Water Water

Table B.16 North Dakota Traffic (1,000 tons) ND Shipments, Beyond ND Shipments, In-State Mode 1,000 Tons Share Mode 1,000 Tons Share Pipeline 32,567 48% Truck 67,242 62% Truck 20,540 30% Pipeline 39,431 36% Rail 14,551 21% Rail 1,599 1% Other/Multiple modes 70 0% Other/Multiple modes 18 0% Truck-rail Intermodal 3 0% Water 8 0% Air, air-truck 0 0% Air, air-truck - 0% Water 0 0% Total 67,732 100% Total 108,297 100% Source: FAF2 Database, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

ND Top 15 Total Commodities Shipped

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

Tons Tons (000) 20,000

10,000

Coal

Other ag Fuel oils Unknown Machinery Milled grain Cereal grains Waste & Gravelscrap &Other stone foodstuff Coal/ petroleum Gas/aviation fuel Crude Petroleum Nonmet. MineralsAnimal feed/other

Figure B.24 North Dakota Top 15 Total Commodities Shipped

B-33

Table B.17 Complete Category Names for Total Commodities Shipped Commodity Abbreviation Complete Commodity Name Cereal grains Cereal grains Coal Coal Coal/ petroleum Coal and petroleum products, n.e.c. Crude Petroleum Crude Petroleum Other ag Other agricultural products Waste & scrap Waste and scrap Gravel & stone Gravel and crushed stone Other foodstuff Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils Gas/aviation fuel Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel Nonmet. Minerals Nonmetallic minerals n.e.c. Fuel oils Fuel oils Animal feed/other Animal feed and products of animal origin, n.e.c. Unknown Commodity unknown Milled grain Milled grain products and preparations, bakery products Machinery Machinery

ND Top 15 Out-of-state Commodities Shipped

35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 Tons Tons (000) 10,000 5,000 -

Other ag Unknown Fuel oils Machinery Milled grain Cereal grains Mixed freight Coal/petroleum Other foodstuff Gravel & stone Wood products Gas/aviation fuel Crude Petroleum Nonmet. Minerals Animal feed/products

Figure B.25 North Dakota 15 Top Out-of-State Commodities Shipped

B-34

Table B.18 Complete Category Names for Out-of-State Commodities Shipped Commodity Abbreviation Complete Commodity Name Coal/petroleum Coal and petroleum products, n.e.c. Cereal grains Cereal grains Crude Petroleum Crude Petroleum Other foodstuff Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils Other ag Other agricultural products Animal feed/products Animal feed and products of animal origin, n.e.c. Milled grain Milled grain products and preparations, bakery products Nonmet. Minerals Nonmetallic minerals n.e.c. Gravel & stone Gravel and crushed stone Machinery Machinery Unknown Commodity unknown Gas/aviation fuel Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel Fuel oils Fuel oils Wood products Wood products Mixed freight Mixed freight

ND Top 15 In-state Shipments

45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000

Tons Tons (000) 15,000 10,000 5,000 -

Coal

Other ag Fuel oilsUnknown Machinery Mixed freight Cereal grains Natural sands Gravel & stone Coal/petroleum Other foodstuff Gas/aviation fuel Crude PetroleumWaste and scrap Nonmet. Minerals

Figure B.26 North Dakota Top 15 In-State Shipments

B-35

Table B.19 Complete Category Names for In-State Commodities Shipped Commodity Abbreviation Complete Commodity Name

Coal Coal Cereal grains Cereal grains Crude Petroleum Crude Petroleum Waste and scrap Waste and scrap Gravel & stone Gravel and crushed stone Other ag Other agricultural products Gas/aviation fuel Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel Nonmet. Minerals Nonmetallic minerals n.e.c. Coal/petroleum Coal and petroleum products, n.e.c. Fuel oils Fuel oils Unknown Commodity unknown Other foodstuff Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils Natural sands Natural sands Machinery Machinery Mixed freight Mixed freight

North Dakota International Trade Partners

350

300

250

200

150 Tons Tons (000) 100

- East Asia Europe Canada Africa Latin/South SW Asia Mexico America

ND originated ND terminated

Figure B.27 North Dakota International Trade Partners

B-36

APPENDIX C. NORTH DAKOTA – CANADA TRADE DATA

North Dakota Border Crossing/Entry Ports

North Dakota has 18 border crossing/ports of entry located along the Canadian border, more than any other state. Six ports provide access to/from Saskatchewan, Canada, and 12 ports provide access to/from Manitoba, Canada. Border crossing data was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Management Reporting, Data Warehouse CD-ROM, as of February 17, 2006. The data contain border crossing/entry statistics for each port in North Dakota from 1995 to 2005. According to this data, over 3.5 million trucks have traveled through North Dakota’s ports of entry over a ten-year time period from 1995-2005. During this period, the yearly average number of trucks traveling through all ports in North Dakota was 320,257. North Dakota border crossings/entries per year for trucks are shown in Figure C.1.

North Dakota Truck Border Crossings/Entries per Year

400,000 360,486 350,409 344,524 340,862 333,954 350,000 325,212 330,468 307,081 301,326 300,000 270,583 257,926 250,000

200,000 Trucks 150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure C.1 Border Crossings/Entries per Year Trucks into North Dakota (1995-2005)

Following is a list of Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) definitions for the types of border crossings/entries:

Truck crossings - Number of arriving trucks; does not include privately owned pick-up trucks.

Truck container crossings (loaded and unloaded) - A container is any conveyance entering the United States used for commercial purposes, full or empty. In this case, it is the number of full or empty truck containers arriving at a port. This series includes containers moving as in-bound shipments.

Train crossings - Number of arriving trains at a particular port.

C-1

Rail container crossings (loaded and unloaded) – A container is any conveyance entering the U.S. used for commercial purposes, full or empty. In this case, it is the number of full or empty rail containers arriving at a port. This series includes containers moving as in-bound shipments.

Truck Border Crossing/Entry Ports

Five ports make up approximately 90% of the total incoming number of crossings/entries. The ports of Pembina and Portal make up almost 80% of all North Dakota truck crossings/entries while the ports of Dunseith, Neche, and Walhalla make up approximately 10%. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Pembina port ranks sixth nationally for U.S.-Canada border crossing/entry trade value with approximately $1.2 billion current U.S. dollars for all surface modes. Figure C.2 shows the number of crossings/entries for trucks at each of the five ports for a ten-year period from 1995-2005.

Number of Trucks 250,000

200,000

Pembina, ND 150,000 Portal, ND Dunseith, ND 100,000 Neche, ND Walhalla, ND

50,000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure C.2 Top Border Crossings by Truck

Table C.1 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Trucks into North Dakota (1995-2005) Port/Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Pembina, ND 143,441 140,627 152,110 177,916 200,456 214,377 219,733 203,416 201,761 208,035 198,843 Portal, ND 50,983 59,500 74,126 66,053 64,167 64,581 66,939 67,060 55,667 53,854 56,330 Dunseith, ND 13,957 16,953 19,050 17,371 18,406 18,321 19,753 21,522 19,078 19,979 20,833 Neche, ND 8,909 9,687 10,543 11,482 12,713 11,361 12,211 15,670 14,994 17,372 15,478 Walhalla, ND 8,535 14,019 14,941 9,605 7,874 9,132 9,721 12,924 11,519 13,367 13,123

C-2

Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports in North Dakota

250,000 1995 1996 200,000 1997 1998 150,000 1999 2000 100,000 2001 2002 Number Number of Trucks 2003 50,000 2004 2005 0 Pembina, Portal, ND Dunseith, Neche, ND Walhalla, ND ND ND Port

Figure C.3 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports into North Dakota (1995-2005)

As Figure C.3 indicates, the ports at Pembina and Portal provide the most substantial volumes for truck crossings/entries. During the ten-year period, Pembina and Portal consistently provided almost 80% of the crossing/entry volume for North Dakota.

North Dakota’s remaining 13 ports make up 10% of the total incoming number of crossings/entries. The 13 ports individually had volumes of less than 10,000 trucks over the last five years. However, from 2004-2005, two ports had substantial increases in truck volume. The ports at Northgate and Sherwood had increased truck volumes from the previous year of 1,270 and 2,214, respectively.

C-3

Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports-Trucks per Year (2000-2005)

7,000

6,000

s 2000 k 5,000 2001 Truc 4,000 2002 of

r 3,000 2003 be 2004

um 2,000

N 2005 1,000

D D D D D D D D D D D D D N N N N N N N N N N N , , , , , N , , , N , , , e d e a n s, a o n r, y h e t o n a d r e r a s a o p n le i o h tl u n o g o tu o r a b Jo n rb n r th rw th r o a M s A a a b r e s S n t. o h e Fo N a S C H m N H A S W

Port

Figure C.4 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Trucks per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005)

Table C.2 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Trucks per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005) Port/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Northgate, ND 3,227 5,515 4,103 4,044 4,912 6,182 Sherwood, ND 3,206 3,055 1,659 1,001 3,028 5,242 Fortuna, ND 3,305 4,657 4,910 4,931 4,256 3,523 Noonan, ND 1,289 1,848 2,344 1,644 1,572 2,082 Sarles, ND 1,183 1,564 1,862 1,962 1,626 1,816 Maida, ND 1,429 1,542 1,978 1,656 1,202 1,622 Hansboro, ND 1,764 1,760 1,505 1,603 1,648 1,417 St. John, ND 1,863 1,638 1,875 2,468 1,580 1,042 Antler, ND 1,058 1,584 1,548 1,054 918 776 Carbury, ND 1,780 1,890 1,119 740 849 641 Hannah, ND 353 254 290 278 214 146 Ambrose, ND 168 231 191 72 27 107 Westhope, ND 6,127 6,591 6,433 5,996 6,423 4,751

Border crossings/entries of loaded truck containers have totaled over 1.8 million from 2000 to 2005. Since 2000, the yearly average for loaded truck container crossings/entries has been over 300,000 per year at North Dakota’s ports (Figure C.5).

C-4

North Dakota Loaded Truck Container Border Crossings/Entries by Year

340,000

330,000

320,000

310,000

300,000

290,000 Loaded Truck Containers Loaded Truck 280,000

270,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure C.5 Border Crossings/Entries per Year Loaded Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005)

The Pembina, North Dakota, port has handled more than three and one-half times the volume of loaded truck container crossings/entries than the next highest volume port at Portal, North Dakota, during a six- year period from 2000-2005. Figure C.6 shows the top five crossing/entry ports for loaded truck containers. The top five crossing/entry ports combined handle more than 93% of loaded truck container traffic. Approximately 82% of the loaded truck container traffic crosses/enters the ports at Pembina and Portal.

C-5

Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports-Loaded Truck Containers

250,000

200,000

Pembina, ND 150,000 Portal, ND Dunseith, ND

100,000 Neche, ND Walhalla, ND

Loaded Truck Containers Loaded Truck 50,000

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure C.6 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Loaded Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005)

Table C.3 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Loaded Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005) Port/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Pembina, ND 199,947 211,020 196,366 191,029 207,765 205,007 Portal, ND 53,401 55,590 57,631 50,991 49,417 49,313 Dunseith, ND 16,990 18,955 20,571 17,698 19,468 18,995 Neche, ND 7,561 11,265 10,037 9,143 14,295 12,525 Walhalla, ND 6,631 7,562 9,803 8,552 10,282 9,024

Figure C.7 and Table C.4 show loaded truck container totals for the other 13 border crossing/entry ports in North Dakota. The ports at Fortuna, Northgate, Sherwood, and Westhope, North Dakota, have the largest amount of loaded truck container crossing/entry traffic among the 13 other ports in the state.

C-6

Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports-Loaded Truck Containers per Year (2000-2005)

6000

5000 2000 4000 2001 2002 3000 2003 2000 2004 1000 2005

Loaded Truck Containers Loaded Truck 0

Antler, ND Maida, ND Sarles, ND Carbury, Fortuna, ND Hannah, ND ND Noonan, ND Ambrose, ND St. John, ND Hansboro, ND Northgate, ND Sherwood, ND Westhope, ND Port

Figure C.7 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports-Loaded Truck Containers Yearly (2000-2005)

Table C.4 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports Loaded Truck Containers per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005) Port/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Northgate, ND 2,771 4,212 2,685 2,312 3,287 4,749

Sherwood, ND 2,677 2,686 793 830 2,837 4,734 Westhope, ND 4,918 5,395 4,371 3,600 5,165 4,295 Fortuna, ND 3,276 4,579 4,804 4,702 4,158 3,345 Sarles, ND 919 1,172 1,259 1,050 1,192 1,039

Maida, ND 1,108 1,277 1,486 1,090 819 710

Antler, ND 714 1,230 996 559 697 609 Hansboro, ND 1,123 1,107 1,026 834 909 535 St. John, ND 378 537 722 1,214 876 494

Carbury, ND 1,370 1,575 923 595 685 360

Noonan, ND 388 616 705 567 511 321 Hannah, ND 251 223 198 175 130 71 Ambrose, ND 116 124 21 1 4

Average empty truck containers from 2000-2005 averaged almost 35,000 per year. The total empty truck container crossings/entries for the five-year period were over 209,000 (Figure C.8).

C-7

North Dakota Empty Truck Container Border Crossings/Entries by Year

45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000

20,000 15,000

10,000 Empty Containers Truck 5,000

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure C.8 Border Crossings/Entries per Year Empty Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005)

Figure C.9 displays the top five crossing/entry ports for empty truck containers in North Dakota. For three years (2000-2002), Portal, North Dakota, had the most border crossings/entries for empty truck containers. Since 2002, empty truck container crossing/entry has predominately occurred at Pembina, North Dakota. Table C.5 shows the yearly totals for the five ports that average the most empty truck container crossings/entries.

C-8

Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports-Empty Truck Containers

20,000

18,000

16,000 s r 14,000 ne i

a Pembina, ND t 12,000

on Portal, ND C

k 10,000 Neche, ND Walhalla, ND Truc 8,000 y Westhope, ND pt

m 6,000 E

4,000

2,000

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure C.9 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports into North Dakota-Empty Truck Containers (2000-2005)

Table C.5 Top Five Border Crossing/Entry Ports for Empty Truck Containers into North Dakota (2000-2005) Port/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Pembina, ND 11,768 8,372 7,135 9,953 10,933 17,148 Portal, ND 11,877 13,366 8,705 5,739 5,598 6,046 Neche, ND 3,718 4,712 5,961 5,499 3,117 2,980 Walhalla, ND 2,113 2,197 3,049 2,936 2,845 3,979 Westhope, ND 1,180 1,199 1,580 1,187 1,337 1,383

Figure C.10 and Table C.6 show empty truck container totals for the other 13 border crossing/entry ports in North Dakota. The port at Noonan, North Dakota, had the largest amount of empty truck container crossing/entry traffic among the other thirteen ports in 2005. Northgate, North Dakota, had the highest average number of container crossings/entries (1,304 per year) from 2000-2005.

C-9

Other North Dakota Border Crossing/Entry Ports-Empty Truck Containers per Year (2000-2005).

2500

2000 2000 2001 1500 2002

1000 2003 2004 500 2005 Empty Containers Truck 0

Maida, ND Sarles, ND Antler, ND Noonan, ND St. John, Carbury,ND ND Fortuna, Hannah, ND ND Northgate, Dunseith, ND ND Hansboro, ND Sherwood, ND Ambrose, ND Port

Figure C.10 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports Empty Truck Containers per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005)

Table C.6 Other Border Crossing/Entry Ports Empty Truck Containers per Year into North Dakota (2000-2005) Port/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Noonan, ND 494 745 1,240 768 604 1,490 Northgate, ND 502 1,232 1,447 1,968 1,408 1,264 Dunseith, ND 1,134 919 1,192 1,556 710 929 Maida, ND 262 282 476 556 342 922 Hansboro, ND 707 651 478 773 740 915 Sarles, ND 267 403 609 912 453 786 Sherwood, ND 329 328 815 156 187 661 St. John, ND 869 901 1,133 1,273 719 541 Carbury, ND 5 2 105 303 Antler, ND 331 390 567 440 199 175 Fortuna, ND 137 99 90 180 93 157 Hannah, ND 21 45 93 104 84 75 Ambrose, ND 48 95 92 21 1

C-10

Rail Border Crossing/Entry Ports

North Dakota has two main crossing/entry ports for trains, rail containers, and empty rail containers. These crossing/entry ports include Northgate and Portal. The bulk of train crossing/entry is through Portal. The average yearly train crossings/entries through Portal from 1995 to 2005 were over 1,600. The Northgate port has averaged nearly seven trains a year from 1998 to 2005 (Table C.7).

Table C.7 Train Border Crossings/Entries into North Dakota 1998-2005

Port 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Northgate 10 7 12 8 3 5 2 Portal 1,611 1,589 1,716 1,756 1,977 2,096 1,998 2,167

Tables C8 and C9 display loaded and empty border crossings/entries for 1998-2005. The tables identify the number of full and empty rail containers arriving at a port. A container is defined as any conveyance entering the United States used for commercial purposes. Loaded rail container volumes totaled over 900,000 units over the seven-year period while total empty container volumes during the same time period were over 450,000 units.

Table C.8 Loaded Rail Container Border Crossings/Entries into North Dakota 1998-2005 Port/Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Northgate 147 53 221 124 51 152 54 Portal 17,457 101,205 110,826 111,477 129,130 136,772 148,292 147,051

Table C.9 Empty Rail Container Border Crossings/Entries into North Dakota 1998-2005 Northgate 1 4 2 Portal 5,513 36,584 42,016 56,660 70,507 80,618 76,604 84,781

C-11

FURNITURE , $302,952,148 PARTS AND POLYMERS OF ACCESSORIES FOR ETHYLENE, $771,832,083 VEHICLES, $318,193,758 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD, $415,977,446

WOOD, $747,783,628 LIQUEFIED PROPANE AND BUTANE, $498,181,912

ELECTRIC CURRENT, $544,526,689 SPECIAL TRANSACTIONS AND NONCLASSIFIED COMMODITIES , $725,483,121

LIVE ANIMALS , $609,877,659 FERTILIZERS , $721,816,507 Figure C.11 Top 10 Imports to North Dakota from Canada Based on Total Value (2005) Source: U.S. International Trade Commission

NONLIQUID PUMPS, AIR OR GAS COMPRESSORS AND FANS $274,598,396 CIVIL ENGR & CONTRACTORS' PLANT AND EQUIPMENT, TRACTORS , $279,317,053 $881,633,628

ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES, $313,736,113

TRAILERS, SEMI- TRAILERS, AND CONTAINERS , $358,647,423 MOTOR CARS , $738,243,479

IRON AND STEEL TUBES, PIPES, AND FITTINGS , $380,158,996

ENGINES AND PARTS , AGRICULTURAL $394,076,631 MACHINERY , GOODS TRANSPORT $479,406,164 MOTOR VEHICLES AND SP MOTOR VEHICLES, $406,238,073 Figure C.12 Top 10 Exports to Canada from North Dakota Based on Total Value (2005) Source: U.S. International Trade Commission

C-12

$900 8 0 8 $ $800

$700

$600 )

( 1 7

t 4 4

n $ $500 3 e 4 r 4 $ Exports r 9 3

u 6 5 $

C 3 Imports $400 $ n o i l l i $300 M

$201 $200 $186 $194 $200 $164

$100

$- 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Figure C.13 Manitoba Exports to and Imports from North Dakota 2001-2005 (All Manufacturing Industries) Source: Trade Data Online strategis.gc.ca

$400

$350 $335 $324

$300 $266 $247 $250 $220 Exports $200 Imports

$150 $123

Million Current($) Million $115 $105 $96 $100 $90

$50

$- 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure C.14 Saskatchewan Exports to and Imports from North Dakota 2001-2005 (All Manufacturing Industries) Source: Trade Data Online strategis.gc.ca

C-13

$2,500

15 ,9 1 $2,000 $

30 ) ,4 4 1 ($ 2 9 $ t 6 $1,500 2 6 ,2 n , 9 1 1 1 $ e $ , r 1 Exports r $ u C

Imports n o

i $1,000 l l Mi 5 3 5 2 52 7 48 6 $ 3 4 $ 4 40 $ $ $500 $

$- 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure C.15 Canada Exports to and Imports from North Dakota 2001-2005 (All Manufacturing Industries) Source: Trade Data Online strategis.gc.ca

C-14

Table C.10 North Dakota and Canada Ports Hours of Operation North Dakota Ports of Entry: Hours of Operation (Opposite Canada Port of Entry in Bold) U. S. / Canada Port of Entry Facilities and Services Operational Hours Ambrose, ND / Torquay, SK Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM (Central) Highway – Land Border Office Seven Days A Week / Traveler Services: 8:00AM-4:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-5:00PM (Central) remainder of the year. Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 4:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-5:00PM (Central) remainder of the year. Monday to Friday (except holidays). Antler, ND / Lyleton, MB Designated Export Office, 8:00 AM-9:00 PM(Central) Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 9:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Carbury, ND / Goodlands, Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) MB Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 9:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Dunseith, ND / Boissevan, Designated Export Office, Twenty Four Hours A Day MB Highway – Land Border, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Electronic Data Interchange, Services: Twenty Four Hours A Duty-Free Shop Day Seven Days A Week. Commercial Services: 9:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services 8:00 AM-4:00 PM (Central) Weekdays (Monday-Friday) U.S. Immigration & Twenty Four Hours A Day Naturalization Service Seven Days A Week U.S. Veterinary Services Mon, Wed, Thurs, Fri 8AM- 4:30PM Fortuna, ND / Oungre, SK Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) Highway – Land Border Office Seven Days A Week / Traveler Services: 8:00AM-9:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) remainder of the year. Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-5:00PM (Central) remainder of the year. Monday to Friday (except holidays). C-15

North Dakota Ports of Entry: Hours of Operation (Opposite Canada Port of Entry in Bold) U. S. / Canada Port of Entry Facilities and Services Operational Hours Hannah, ND / Snowflake, MB Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 9:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Hansboro, ND / Cartwright, Designated Export Office, 8:00 AM-9:00 PM(Central) MB Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 8:00AM-9:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Maida, ND / Windygates, Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) MB Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 9:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Neche, ND / Gretna, MB Designated Export Office, 8:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 8:00AM-10:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Noonan, ND / Estevan Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) Highway,SK Highway – Land Border Office Seven Days A Week / Traveler Services: 8:00AM-9:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) remainder of the year. Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-5:00PM (Central) remainder of the year. Northgate, ND / Northgate, Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) SK Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Railway Depot Services: 8:00AM-9:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) remainder of the year. Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-5:00PM (Central) remainder of the year.

C-16

North Dakota Ports of Entry: Hours of Operation (Opposite Canada Port of Entry in Bold) U. S. / Canada Port of Entry Facilities and Services Operational Hours Pembina, ND / Emerson, MB Designated Commercial Office, Twenty Four Hours A Day Designated Export Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Duty-Free Shop, Electronic Services: Twenty Four Hours A Data Interchange, Free and Day Seven Days A Week Secure Trade, Highway – Land Commercial Services: Twenty Border Office, Immigration, Four Hours A Day Railway Depot Seven Days A Week Immigration Services: 8:00AM- 12:00PM Seven Days a Week Agriculture Specialist 8:00 AM-4:00 PM(Central) Weekdays (Monday-Friday) Cargo Processing Twenty Four Hours A Day Seven Days A Week Passenger Processing Twenty Four Hours A Day Seven Days A Week USDA Veterinary Services 8:00 AM-4:00 PM(Central) Weekdays (Monday-Friday) Portal, ND / North Portal, SK Designated Commercial Office, Twenty Four Hours A Day Designated Export Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Duty-Free Shop, Electronic Services: Twenty Four Hours A Data Interchange, Free and Day Seven Days A Week Secure Trade, Highway – Land Commercial Services: Twenty Border Office, Immigration, Four Hours A Day Railway Depot Seven Days A Week Immigration Services: 8:00AM- 11:00PM Seven Days a Week U.S. Agriculture 8:00 AM-4:00 PM(Central) Weekdays (Monday-Friday) U.S. Border Patrol N/A U.S. Immigration & Twenty Four Hours A Day Naturalization Service Seven Days A Week U.S. Meat Inspection N/A U.S. Veterinary Services N/A Sarles, ND / Crystal City, Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) MB Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 9:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Sherwood, ND / Carievale, Designated Export Office, 9:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) SK Highway – Land Border Office Seven Days A Week / Traveler Services: 8:00AM-9:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-10:00PM (Central) remainder of the year. Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) first Sunday in April to last Saturday in October 9:00AM-5:00PM (Central) remainder of the year.

C-17

North Dakota Ports of Entry: Hours of Operation (Opposite Canada Port of Entry in Bold) U. S. / Canada Port of Entry Facilities and Services Operational Hours Saint John, ND / Lena, MB Designated Export Office, 8:00 AM-9:00 PM(Central) Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 8:00AM-9:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Walhalla, ND / Winkler, MB Designated Export Office, 8:00 AM-10:00 PM(Central) Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 8:00AM-10:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays). Westhope, ND / Coulter, MB Designated Export Office, 8:00 AM-9:00 PM(Central) Highway – Land Border Office, Seven Days A Week / Traveler Non-Terminal Office Services: 8:00AM-9:00PM (Central) Seven Days a Week Commercial Services: 8:00AM- 5:00PM (Central) Monday to Friday (except holidays).

C-18

APPENDIX D. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS FREIGHT-RAIL BOTTOM LINE

According to the executive summary, AASHTO lists the following public benefits of the freight-rail system: Transportation System Capacity and Highway Cost Savings, Economic Development and Productivity, International Trade Competitiveness, Environmental Health and Safety, and Emergency Response

Transportation System Capacity and Highway Cost Savings

The study notes that the freight-rail system carries 16% of the nation’s freight by tonnage, accounting for 28% of total ton-miles, 40% of intercity ton-miles, and 6% of freight value. The study provides an interesting example that if all freight-rail were shifted to trucks, it would add 92 billion truck vehicle- miles-of-travel (VMT) to the highway system and cost federal, state, and local transportation agencies an additional $64 billion for highway improvements over the next 20 years. According to the study, $64 billion is a conservative figure that does not include the costs of improvements to bridges, interchanges, local roads, new roads, or system enhancements. If these items were included, the study predicts that this estimate could double.

Economic Development and Productivity

According to the study, freight rail provides shippers with cost-effective transportation, especially for heavy and bulky commodities, and can be a critical factor in retaining and attracting industries that are central to state and regional economies. The study indicates that if all freight-rail were shifted to trucks, it would cost current rail shippers an additional $69 billion this year alone — or $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years — causing significant changes in business and consumer costs.

International Trade Competitiveness

Freight rail, combined with the trucking industry, provides intermodal transportation that connects inland producers and consumers to seaports. The study states freight rail carries 16% of the nation’s cross-border NAFTA trade, and intermodal freight-rail service is crucial to the global competitiveness of U.S. industries.

Environmental Health and Safety

The study discusses freight rail as fuel-efficient, generating less air pollution per ton-mile than trucking, and is the preferred mode of shipment for hazardous materials because of its positive safety record.

Emergency Response

The study states freight rail as vital to military mobilization, providing critically needed transportation system redundancy in national emergencies. D-1

Capacity

Demand for freight transportation services is growing with the economy. According to the study, with about 3% growth in the economy, domestic freight tonnage will increase by approximately 57% by 2020 and import-export tonnage will increase by nearly 100%.

According to the study trucks and the highway system carry 78% of domestic tonnage, the freight-rail system carries 16%, and barges and coastal shipping carry 6%. By 2020, the highway system must carry an additional 6,600 million tons of freight (an increase of 62%), and the freight rail system must carry an additional 888 million tons (an increase of 44%). However, the highway system is increasingly congested, and the social, economic, and environmental costs of adding new highway capacity are prohibitively high in many areas. The study indicates that state departments of transportation are asking if expanding the capacity of the freight-rail system in some cases might be a cost-effective way of increasing the capacity of the total transportation system.

The study discusses how the freight rail system freed business and industry from the need to locate near sea, river, and canal ports during the 19th century. The freight-rail system has since been eclipsed by trucking and highways in the 20th century, which has freed business and industry from the need to locate near rail lines and terminals. Long-haul trucking has proved reliable door-to-door service and has captured a large share of freight traffic from the railroads and much of the freight traffic from coastal steamers and river barges.

According to the study, seven Class I railroads today originate 84% of the traffic and generate 91% of railroad revenue, and 551 regional and short-line railroads that operate 30,000 miles of track, originate 16% of traffic, and generate 9% of railroad revenue. Deregulation improved service and productivity, and ton-miles handled per railroad employee has quadrupled since 1980. However, the study indicates the productivity gains and competitive rates have not been sufficient enough to rebuild market share and increase revenue.

The study indicates that railroad revenues have continued to drop. The industry’s return on investment has improved from about 4% in 1980 to about 8% in 2000; however, it is still below the cost of capital at 10%. According to the study, most of the benefits of railroad reorganization and productivity improvements have accrued to shippers and the economy in the form of rate cuts, rather than to the railroads and their investors.

The study discusses this as a major problem for the railroad industry because it is extraordinarily capital- intensive. According to the study, railroads spend about five times more to maintain rail lines and equipment than the average U.S. manufacturing industry spends on plant and equipment. Investors have backed away from railroad stocks due to the railroads’ capital needs. The railroads either have to borrow money to maintain and expand infrastructure or defer maintenance and improvements.

According to the report, the rail industry today is stable, productive, and competitive, with enough business and profit to operate but not to replenish its infrastructure quickly or grow rapidly. Market forces will continue to pressure the rail industry to streamline and downsize, to maximize revenues, and to minimize capital costs.

The study provided possible futures for the freight-rail system which could be the following:

No Growth

With minimal Class I investments accomplished by the railroads from revenue alone and from investments in short-line improvements and safety enhancements, the freight-rail system could carry the D-2 same volume of freight in 2020 as it carries today, but little more. Freight that could not be handled by the railroads, much of it heavy commodities, would move to trucks and the highway system. This would shift almost 900 million tons of freight and 31 billion truck VMT to the highways, costing shippers $326 billion, costing highway users $492 billion (in travel time, operating, and accident costs), and adding $21 billion to highway costs over the 20-year period. This $21 billion is a conservative figure that does not include the costs of improvements to bridges, interchanges, local roads, new roads, or system enhancements. If these were included, the estimate could double. This scenario illustrates how insufficient investment in our nation’s freight-rail system could negatively impact highways and the overall transportation system.

Constrained Investment

With additional investment — approximately what the Class I railroads can afford today from their revenue plus borrowing — the freight-rail system could handle additional traffic, but could not keep pace with growing demands for freight movement. It could handle around half of its ―fair share‖ of forecast growth in freight-rail tonnage. The balance would likely shift to trucks and the highway system. This would transfer almost 450 million tons of freight and 15 billion truck VMT to the highways, costing shippers $162 billion, costing highway users $238 billion (in travel time, operating, and accident costs), and adding $10 billion to highway costs over the 20-year period. Inclusion of costs for bridges, interchanges, etc. could double this estimate.

Base Case

With a higher level of investment, the freight rail system could maintain its current share of commodity- lane traffic, and accommodate its ―fair share‖ of forecast growth in freight-rail tonnage. Funding would come from a combination of railroad investments (above and beyond what currently can be funded from revenues and borrowing) and public-sector participation. In this scenario, the highway system would still shoulder the full forecast growth in truck-freight tonnage and truck VMT.

Aggressive Investment

With a still-higher level of investment, the freight rail system could increase its share of freight traffic, capturing more than its base case share of forecast growth, and relieving some of the anticipated truck and congestion pressure on the nation’s highway system. Funding needs would be met by greater railroad investments and increased public-sector participation. This would allow freight rail to carry a larger percentage of freight tonnage in 2020 than it carries today (17% in 2020 compared to 16% today). It would shift 600 million tons of freight and 25 billion truck VMT off the highway system, save shippers $239 billion, save highway users $397 billion, and reduce highway costs by $17 billion. Inclusion of costs for bridges, interchanges, etc. could double this estimate.

To simply keep up with freight rail’s share of the forecast demand — the base case scenario —the freight- rail system needs substantial capital investment. The precise amount has not been determined, but can be generally estimated from a variety of sources.57

57 This first approximation of freight-rail needs likely understates both the costs and the benefits. A comprehensive national assessment of freight-rail needs, comparable with highway and transit needs assessments, does not exist.

D-3

Rail Safety Needs — $13.8 billion

The Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University surveyed state rail-safety needs, focusing on highway-rail at-grade crossings. This estimate includes costs for additional warning systems, grade separations, grade-crossing eliminations, and track relocations for both freight and passenger systems. These needs have usually been addressed by a combination of private and public investment.

Short-Line Improvements — $11.8 billion

The tracks and bridges of much of the nation’s short-line system are inadequate to handle the newer 286,000-lb. and 315,000-lb. railcars coming into service. A study commissioned by the American Short- Line Rail Road Association estimated the cost of upgrading the nation’s short-line system to handle 286,000-lb. railcars at $6.9 billion. This estimate is consistent with the findings of the Railroad Shipper Transportation Advisory Council (White Paper III, April 2000), which was based on a 1999 survey by AASHTO. The council found a total capital need of $11.8 billion, of which $9.5 billion was unfunded. The council’s estimate included deferred maintenance, safety and speed improvements, and weight improvements. In recent years, these needs have been largely addressed by public investment. Class I Infrastructure Repair and Maintenance — $4 to $5 billion annually, or $80 to $100 billion over 20 years

Class I Infrastructure Improvements

The Class I railroads currently are investing around $2 billion annually for improvements above and beyond repair and maintenance. This is not sufficient to meet the needs of the base case scenario, and is more consistent with the constrained investment scenario. Should this continue, it means that freight rail will lose market share, thereby increasing transportation and highway system costs over the next 20 years. Higher levels of investment will be needed to achieve either the base case scenario or aggressive investment scenario.

The total cost to achieve the base case scenario is estimated at $175 to $195 billion over 20 years. Railroads should be able to provide the majority of the funding needed (up to $142 billion dollars) from revenue and borrowing, but the remainder (up to $53 billion, or $2.65 billion annually) would have to come from other sources — including, but not limited to, loans, tax credits, sale of assets, and other forms of public-sector participation. Compared to the constrained investment scenario, the base case scenario removes 450 million tons of freight and 15 billion truck VMT from the highways, saves shippers $162 billion, saves highway users $238 billion, and saves $10 billion in highway costs over the 20-year period. Inclusion of costs for bridges, interchanges, etc. could double this estimate. The total cost to achieve the aggressive investment scenario is estimated at $205 to $225 billion over 20 years. Up to $83 billion, or $4.15 billion annually, would have to come from sources other than railroad revenue and borrowing. Compared to the constrained investment scenario, the aggressive investment scenario removes 1,035 million tons of freight and 40 billion truck VMT from the highways, saves shippers $401 billion, saves highway users $635 billion, and saves $27 billion in highway costs over the 20-year period. Inclusion of costs for bridges, interchanges, etc. could double this estimate.

The study indicates that these are preliminary estimates that should be confirmed by detailed benefit/cost studies, but the conclusion is that relatively small additional investments in the nation’s freight rail system can be leveraged to provide relatively large public benefits.

D-4

According to the study, these investments should be made at the network level. Public participation in rail system investments has historically addressed the bottom of the system: grade crossings, branch lines, and commuter rail services. The present need is to treat the key elements at the top of the system: nationally significant corridor choke points, intermodal terminals and connectors, and urban rail interchanges. Investments at this level hold the most promise of attracting and retaining freight-rail traffic through improvements in service performance.

The study noted the choice for the nation’s freight-rail system is between ―market-driven evolution‖ of the freight-rail system and ―public-policy-driven expansion‖ of the system. Market-driven evolution will accommodate some of the forecast freight growth, but relieve little of the forecast congestion on the highway system. A public-policy-driven expansion could produce a rail industry that provides the cost- effective transport needed to serve national and global markets, relieve pressure on overburdened highways, and support local social, economic, and environmental goals.

Many states have already taken steps consistent with a public-policy-driven approach by investing directly in their rail systems and by forming public–private partnerships to implement specific projects. But making increased levels of investment and realizing the public benefits of a strong freight-rail system at a national level will require a new partnership among the railroads, the states, and the federal government.

This partnership must enunciate a clear national policy of improving freight system productivity, including expanding state eligibility and flexibility to invest where freight-rail improvements have significant highway and public benefits; increasing loan and credit enhancement programs; and initiating innovative tax-expenditure financing programs, including accelerated depreciation, tax-exempt bond financing, and tax-credit bond financing. The partnership must extend beyond state boundaries to match the scale of the policy and investment decisions to the scale of today’s freight-rail system.

The freight transportation sector faces many challenges in the future and, according to the study, the consequences of not addressing them are clearer today than when ISTEA and TEA-21 were enacted. The study concludes that the public sector and the private freight transportation community must advance public policy options that improve the capacity, productivity, and security of the freight-rail system as an integral part of the national freight transportation system.

D-5

D-6

APPENDIX E. GLOBAL INSIGHT-TRANSEARCH DATABASE INFORMATION

When forecasting freight shipments and freight flow, it is most beneficial from a planning perspective to obtain the most current and descriptive data in order to fully understand what is moving in and out of the state. Doing so provides increased accuracy and further provides a comprehensive view of freight flow activity into the future.

Reviewing literature from other statewide transportation plans provides a clear picture of how states address the task of determining freight flow patterns. Proprietary databases are commonly used by state agencies, freight carriers, port operators, and the government to develop truck flow methodology. The most common and widely used proprietary data is developed by Global Insight. The company has a 40- year track record for providing accurate, comprehensive, and objective economic analysis and forecasts. Global Insight’s proprietary database called TRANSEARCH contains access to the most up-to-date freight flow data that includes seven transportation modes: Rail (cars and intermodal containers), full truck load, less-than-truckload, private truck, air, and water. Freight flow data (i.e., BTS commodity flow survey) are not produced on a yearly basis, making it difficult to develop accurate forecasts. TRANSEARCH data is produced every year and includes more substantial sample shipments for increased accuracy. For example, trucking data from the commodity flow survey samples approximately 16 million shipments, whereas TRANSEARCH samples 100 million shipments. Therefore, availability of an increased number of samples offers a more detailed and scientific approach to freight movement. In addition, TRANSEARCH breaks down freight flow information to the county level and by 2-digit or 4- digit Standard Transportation Commodity Classification Codes (STCC).

Of the 50 states, 35 have used TRANSEARCH for planning purposes. Recent applications of TRANSEARCH visual database at public planning and policy agencies include:

 Providing a common, validated framework for measurement of freight traffic  Measuring public impacts of transportation projects, feasibility or unfeasibility  Strengthening applications for federal funding assistance with quantified data  Assessing proposed transportation investments/projects with quantified benefits  Input for statewide transportation plans and reference source for various sections  Input for airport master plans with airport and hinterland origins /destinations  Basis for comparing local region with other areas re: competitive analysis  Platform for measuring recent growth trends by specific products/industries  Platform for measuring forecasts of future growth by product/industry/mode  Basis for developing policy impacts in terms of modal and/or industrial shifts  Basis for estimating new job creation or existing job loss levels by county

For states to enhance their competitiveness into the future, it is most beneficial from a planning perspective to develop a common framework of freight traffic or obtain proprietary databases with the most current and descriptive freight shipment and freight flow data in order to fully understand what is moving in and out of the state. Doing so will provide increased accuracy and further provide a comprehensive view of freight flow activity.

E-1

E-2

APPENDIX F. INTERMODAL DEFINITION AND STUDY FINDINGS

Intermodal Definition

Intermodal freight transportation is defined as the seamless and continuous door-to-door transportation of freight on two or more transportation modes (Muller, 1995).

Significant Findings

 Nationwide, from 1990 to 1999, trailer and intermodal container loadings in the U.S. increased from 6.2 million to 10.6 million (AAR 2000).

 A new trend in intermodal transportation is that some bulk commodities now are moving by containers. North Dakota bulk commodities ideal for container movements may include skid steer loaders, mini excavators, value-added wood products and furniture, industrial and agricultural machinery, and agricultural products such as soybeans, confection sunflowers, and organic and identity preserved (IP) grains.

 The largest barrier to many companies using intermodal shipping is the location of an intermodal loading facility within a reasonable distance.

 Location factors contributing to the success of an intermodal facility include potential container volume, multiple railroad alternatives, location on an intermodal line, location on the National Highway System, and the availability of accessorial rail services.

 Although the intermodal facility at Dilworth, MN is close to North Dakota, alleged problems with customer service, capacity, truck access, and limited space for warehousing cloud its future viability.

 For an intermodal facility to be located in North Dakota it must meet one of two criteria: (1) it must have a traffic volume that is large enough to generate efficient shipment sizes to final destinations without being consolidated with other traffic, or (2) it must have ancillary services available to the railroad that would give it a reason to stop and receive extra cars.

 The largest amount of potential intermodal container traffic is in the southeast portion of North Dakota, near Fargo. This is due in part to close proximity to northwestern Minnesota.

 In order to be successful, an intermodal facility may have to be located on a Class 1 railroad intermodal line.

 Minot is the only location in North Dakota where two Class I railroads interchange freight cars and where two competing railroad intermodal lines intersect.

 An intermodal facility serving North Dakota may be viewed as an economic development tool that will help promote the success of existing businesses and draw new businesses to the state.

 North Dakota may need to establish enabling legislation allowing the formation of a port authority.

F-1

 The success of the Port of Montana has important implications for North Dakota. A successful intermodal facility may need to diversify in order to achieve success.

 To be successful, an intermodal facility will need make between 13,000 and 21,000 lifts per year.

 In addition to the freight rate, important factors in the choice of transportation modes include transit time, reliability, capability, accessibility, customer shipping preference, and security.

 A base intermodal facility capable of handling 50,000 lifts per year is estimated to cost in excess of $2 million and have an annual operational cost of approximately $500,000.

 Adequate capital funding and operating revenues are the two main obstacles to constructing and operating a successful intermodal facility.

 One of the largest barriers to funding an intermodal container facility is that federal and state highway funding rules limit the ability to accomplish multimodal projects.

 A possible funding scenario may be to follow the Port of Montana example.

 Benefits of intermodal transportation include: . lower overall logistics costs . increased economic productivity and efficiency . reduced congestion and burden on over-stressed highway infrastructure . higher returns from public and private infrastructure investments . reduced energy consumption . increased safety . opportunities for new business growth and diversification

 Intermodal truck-rail transportation offers two distinct advantages: (1) it allows combining the better service characteristics of truck with the lower rates of rail, and (2) it increases the ease of shipping products internationally.

 An intermodal loading facility in North Dakota may result in an overall reduction in truck traffic and highway system maintenance.

 Viable intermodal container transportation may provide an avenue for North Dakota manufacturers and value-added agricultural producers to compete in international and domestic markets.

Keys to Developing an Intermodal Facility in North Dakota

Many parties have expressed a strong interest in developing a highway/rail intermodal container transportation facility. The development of a successful facility will require someone or an entity to take a strong leadership role. It will also require a cooperative effort among federal, state, and local governments, economic development groups, railroads and other transportation companies, manufacturers, and specialty agricultural producers. This effort may include such actions as: 1. Pursuing state enabling legislation allowing for creation of a port authority for communities and regions • Bonding authority • Power to tax

F-2

2. State legislation allowing joint state/local funding cooperation for non-highway components • Start-up grant from state or federal sources • Low-interest loans

3. Local community support of creation of diversified shipping/business model

4. Commitments and cooperative Effort • Commitment of rail carriers for rates and service • Commitment of a jurisdiction (city, state, county, and rail) • Cooperation among states and provinces • Commitments from shippers and third party transportation providers

5. Specific site analysis • Business plan • Engineering plan

6. Creation of an outreach program educating shippers about intermodal transportation using an internship program and other educational methods

Final determination as to whether or not a facility is built in North Dakota is up to the leadership of both public and private sectors. The information in this report provides a basis for discussing the pros and cons of constructing an intermodal terminal. Cooperation among state and local government leaders along with business leaders can bring about a plan for increasing the transportation options for the shippers of the state.

A multi-faceted terminal serving many different interests and filling niche transportation demands may provide opportunities for existing businesses to diversify and grow, and for potential new businesses in the state and surrounding region. The trend of increased production of identity preserved agricultural products and a growing viable manufacturing sector requires additional logistical and transportation options be created.

F-3

F-4

APPENDIX G: PUBLIC- PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN TRANSPORTATION

The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships defines Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) as: ―…a contractual agreement between a public agency (federal, state or local) and a private sector entity. Through this agreement, the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are shared in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public. In addition to the sharing of resources, each party shares in the risks and rewards potential in the delivery of the service and/or facility.‖ http://ncppp.org/councilinstitutes/

Numerous types of activities can be included in public-private partnerships. Activities in transportation partnerships have included project conceptualization, design, financial planning and finance, construction, operation, maintenance, toll collection, and program management.

Public

Common Public-Private Partnership Example Projects Options Design-Bid-Build Hiawatha Light Rail Transit Private Contract Fee Services Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel Design-Build (DB) Texas State Highway 130 Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Las Vegas Monorail Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) Dulles Greenway

Build-Own-Operate (BOO) Foley Beach Express

Souce:www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/defined.htm Private

Many states have legislation that restricts the use of public-private partnerships. For example, states may have prohibitions against design/build or outsourcing certain agency functions, bans on tolling or commingling public and private funds, or requirements for special legislation authorizing projects using tolls or other forms of direct user charges. In order to expand and turn over this control, enabling legislation may be needed. Even if PPPs are not prohibited by a state, passing specific enabling legislation can minimize the risks of legal action and/or related setbacks. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/defined.htmPrivate

According to the Federal Highway Administration, as of February 2004:

 23 states have passed legislation providing the legal authority for private sector participation in transportation projects to varying degrees; and,  32 states have laws allowing the use of design-build; 28 of these allow its use in highway projects. However, the laws in four of these 28 states limit the use of design-build to pilot programs or to a very small number of projects.

As of September 2005:

 18 states have legislation to provide authority for use of PPPs for a range of transportation projects. The FHWA lists 18 states and Puerto Rico as having ―Significant Transportation PPP Authority.‖ These states are those whose specific PPP legislation has addressed the 28 key elements for highway projects.

G-1

Figure G.1 States with Significant Transportation PPP Authority

Alabama Missouri Arizona Nevada California North Carolina Colorado Oregon Delaware Puerto Rico Florida South Carolina Georgia Texas Louisiana Virginia Maryland Washington Minnesota

Souce: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/legislation .htm

Various financing mechanisms are used to support PPPs. Often a variety of sources are combined in order to make a project economically feasible. Federally sponsored options are also commonly utilized for PPP projects. Public agencies use these federal programs to appeal private sector entities to partnership investments.

Public-Private Financing Methods Federal Public-Private Partnership Finance Programs Direct user charges like tolls or transit fares Flexible Matching General obligation bonds Grant Anticipation Notes and Revenue Vehicles (GANS & GARVEES) Shareholder equity Section 129 Loans State infrastructure bank loans State Infrastructure Banks Additional public agency dedicated revenue accessible to a private franchisee Toll Credits o Leases Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act o Shadow tolls (TIFIA) Credit o Direct user charges from tolled facilities http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/resources.htm

G-2

Table G.1 Examples of Public-Private Projects in the United States, 200458

Contract Amount, Notice to $ millions Project Name Owner Proceed Sponsor Constructors 1,674 Hudson-Bergen Lt. Rail Ph. 1+2 NJ Transit 10/96 Washington Group/Itochu (Perini/Slattery) 1,376 I-15 Reconstruction Utah DOT 3/97 Kiewit/Granite/Washington Group 1,369 Texas SH 130 Tex. DOT 7/02 Fluor/Balfour Beatty (DMJM + Harris) 1,186 I-5 Road/Rail Expansion Colo. DOT/RTD 5/01 Kiewit/Parsons Trans. Group 930 Jamaica-JFK Airtrain Port Auth. NY/NJ 9/99 Skanska/Bombardier (Slattery/Perini) 790 San Joacquin Hills Toll Road Trans Corridor Agencies 9/91 Kiewit/Granite 780 Eastern Toll Road Trans Corridor Agencies 6/95 Flatiron/Wayss & Freitag/Sukut/Obayashi 712 Alameda Rail Tunnel Alameda Corridor Trans. Auth. 11/98 Tutor-Saliba/O&G Indus (Pars. Grp/HNTB) 689 JFK Terminal 4 Port Auth. NY/NJ 5/97 Schipol/LCOR (Morse Diesel) 645 Foothill South Toll Road Trans Corridor Agencies 11/98 Flatiron/HBG/Sukut/Fluor Daniel 610 Tacoma Narrows Bridge Washington State DOT 11/02 Bechtel Infrastructure/Kiewit 604 Camden-Trenton Light Rail NJ Transit 6/99 Bechtel Bombardier (Conti/LB Foster) 532 Cooper River Bridge SC DOT 7/01 Flatiron/Skansa 530 BART San Fran. Airport Ext. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. 5/98 Tutor-Saliba/Slattery JV (HNTB) 386 Conway Bypass Highway SC DOT 3/98 Fluor Daniel 385 Route 3 North Mass. Highways 8/00 Modern Continental/Roy Jorgensen 360 SR 125 South + Connectors San Diego Expressway L.P. 5/03 Washington Group/Fluor Daniel (Parsons Grp) 343 Las Vegas Monorail L.V. Monorail LLC 10/00 Bombardier/Granite 330 Legacy Parkway Utah DOT 1/01 Fluor Daniel/Ames/Ed Kraemer 324 E-470 Toll Beltway, Seg. 2 & 3 E-470 Public Hwy. Auth. 8/95 Washington Group Intl/Fluor Daniel 323 Rt. 895 Connector VDOT 7/98 Fluor Daniel/Washington Group Intl 295 New Mexico 44 Highway NM DOT 9/98 Koch Materials (Flatiron/CH2M Hill) 291 Hiawatha Light Rail Minn. DOT 9/00 Granite/C.S. McCrossan 267 Blue Line Rail Tunnel LA-Pasadena Blue Line Const. 4/00 Kiewit/Washington Group 245 ROC 52 Highway Minn. DOT NA Fluor 236 Virginia Rt. 288 VDOT 12/00 Koch/AP AC/CH2M Hill 233 E-470 Toll Beltway, Seg. 4 E-470 Public Hwy. Auth. 1/00 Kiewit/Washington Group 232 Palm Beach-Ft. Laud. Track Dbl. Tri-County Commuter Rail Auth. 8/01 Herzog/Granite/Washington Group 226 Carolina Bays Highway SC DOT 11/97 Flatiron/Tidewater 220 Blue Line Extension WMATA 4/02 Lane/Granite/Slattery Skanska 198 Rt. 28 Corridor Improvements VDOT 9/02 Clark Const./Shirley Contracting Corp. 191 Southern Connector Toll Road Connector 2000 Assn. 2/98 Interwest (Thrift Bros.) 191 Atlantic City-Brigantine Tunnel NJ DOT 10/97 Mirage Resorts (Yonkers/Granite) 184 U.S. 60 Upgrade Arizona DOT 5/01 Granite/Sundt 180 Northwest Parkway, Denver NWP Public Highway Auth. 6/01 Washington Group/Kiewit Western 171 Reno ReTRAC City of Reno 7/02 Granite (Parsons Trans. Group) 145 Dulles Greenway Toll Road TRIP II 9/93 TRIP II (Brown & Root) 132 U.S. 64 Knightdale Bypass North Carolina DOT 6/02 Flatiron Structures/Lane Const. Corp. 130 CPTC 91 Express Lanes CalTrans 7/93 Level 3/Cofiroute/Granite (sold to OCTA 1/03) 129 U.S. 70 NM DOT 7/01 Granite/Sundt/James Hamilton (URS) 125 Portland Airport Max Rail Tri Met 10/98 Bechtel 102 I-4 Over the St. John's River Florida DOT 1/01 Granite/PCL Civil Constructors 86 Hwy I-17 Thomas to Peoria Arizona DOT 1/99 Granite/Sundt 85 Camino Columbia Truck Bypass Tex. DOT 6/99 Granite/Carter & Burgess 82 Hathaway Bridge Florida DOT 6/00 Granite 53 New River Bridge Tri-County Commuter Rail 2/03 Washington Group International

58 Source: ―Current Practices in Public-Private Partnerships for Highways‖ July 2005 Maryland Transportation Authority, Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland State Highway Administration http://www.mdta.state.md.us/mdta/servlet/dispatchServlet?url=/About/tp3overview.jsp

G-3

Table G.2 Examples of Current, Multi-faceted Public-Private Partnerships

(Estimated) Project Name Partners Objectives Tasks Cost The Chicago Regional 1. Association of $1.5 billion o Reduce rail & motorist o 25 new grade separations Environmental and American Railroads congestion o 6 new rail Transportation 2. Chicago Department of o Improve passenger rail overpasses/underpasses Efficiency Project Transportation o Enhance safety o viaduct improvements (CREATE) 3. IL Department of o Promote economic o grade crossing safety Transportation development improvements 4. Burlington Northern o Create jobs o upgrades to track, Santa Fe o Improve air quality & switches and signal 5. Canadian National reduce train noise systems 6. Canadian Pacific 7. CSX 8. Norfolk Southern 9. Union Pacific The Heartland Corridor 1. Ohio $266 million o Improve global trade for o Rail relocation project in 2. Virginia VA, WV, KY & OH Portsmouth, VA 3. Norfolk Southern o Improve mobility o Double-Stack clearances Railroad o Reduce emissions, and new intermodal o Reduce shipping costs terminals along the Heartland o Expanded intermodal Corridor Capacity o Preservation of rail infrastructure and employment o Economic, tax and employment benefits

Alameda Corridor 1. Port of Los Angeles $2.4 billion o Reduce highway traffic o Consolidate railroad Project 2. Port of Long Beach delays traffic 3. Burlington Northern o Improve safety o Double-Track railroad Santa Fe o Improve rail operations o Depress track railroad 4. Union Pacific o Mitigate environmental o At-grade railway with impacts highway grade o Improve the economy separations o Maximize cost o Continuous at-grade drill effectiveness track o Minimize construction o Left-turn pockets and new impacts signalization on Alameda Street o Widen Alameda Street to 6 lanes Pocahontas Parkway 1. Virginia DOT $318 million o Improve Traffic Flow o Four-lane connector road Connector 2. Fluor Daniel o Improve commute time including 3. Morrison o Better access to o High level bridge and Knudsen Richmond’s international Interchange airport Foley Beach Express 1. City of Foley, $44 million o Reduce travel time o Four-lane route Alabama o Toll bridge 2. Baldwin County o Approach highway Bridge Co.

G-4

APPENDIX H. FREIGHT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK MAPS-TRUCK FLOWS

North Dakota Freight Framework Analysis Maps

The FHWA also has created freight flow maps for individual states based on the FAF data. Figures H1 through H4 show domestic, international, and combined truck flows. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/north_dakota/freightflow_nd.htm The North Dakota maps are included below.

North Dakota Truck Maps

Figure H.1 1998 Total Domestic Truck Flows

H-1

Figure H.2 1998 Total International Truck Flows

H-2

Figure H.3 1998 Combined Domestic and International Flows by Truck

H-3

North Dakota Ports of Entry Map

Figure H.4 1998 Movements Across State Borders

H-4

APPENDIX I. TRUCK TRAVEL SCENARIOS FOR REGIONAL HIGHWAYS (JUNE 2005)

Truck Travel Scenarios for Regional Highways This section provides figures with the 13 scenarios for all interstates, U.S., and state highways. Green, blue, and red lines depict travel allowed without a permit, travel allowed with a permit, and travel not allowed, respectively. Because these figures demonstrate generalized routes, they do not capture load restriction and construction. The scenarios were legally allowed as of June 2005 and may have since changed from the time of this report.59

Figure I.1 Scenario 1 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

59 Source: Mark Berwick, Mark Lofgren, Junwook Chi. Strategic Freight Analysis; Regional Strategic Freight Study on Motor Carrier Issues, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, June, 2005.

I-1

Figure I.2 Scenario 2 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

I-2

Figure I.3 Scenario 3 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

* Canadian Provinces have hours of service limitations on Longer Combination Vehicles (LCV) routes (minor, seasonal, statutory holiday hours, etc. may apply.)

I-3

Figure I.4 Scenario 4 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

* Canadian Provinces have hours of service limitations on LCV routes (minor, seasonal, statutory holiday hours, etc. may apply.)

I-4

Figure I.5 Scenario 5 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

* Canadian Provinces have hours of service limitations on LCV routes (minor, seasonal, statutory holiday hours, etc. may apply.)

I-5

Figure I.6 Scenario 6 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

* Canadian Provinces have hours of service limitations on LCV routes (minor, seasonal, statutory holiday hours, etc. may apply.)

I-6

Figure I.7 Scenario 7 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

I-7

Figure I.8 Scenario 8 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

I-8

Figure I.9 Scenario 9 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

I-9

Figure I.10 Scenario 10 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

* Canadian Provinces have hours of service limitations on LCV routes (minor, seasonal, statutory holiday hours, etc. may apply.)

I-10

Figure I.11 Scenario 11 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

* Canadian Provinces have hours of service limitations on LCV routes (minor, seasonal, statutory holiday hours, etc. may apply.)

I-11

Figure I.12 Scenario 12 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

I-12

Figure I.13 Scenario 13 for All Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, and Major Canadian Highways (Expressways and Major Roads)

I-13

Figure I.14 Permitted Longer Combination Vehicles (LCVs) by State and Truck Configuration

I-14

Conclusions

This study provided insight into inconsistencies in truck size and weight regulations across states and provinces in the region. These inconsistencies stifle the truck transportation system-reducing competitiveness of the region. The truck travel scenarios for the different truck types traveling across the region point out the problems shippers and transportation providers face in moving from state to state, state to province, or vice versa. Some truck configurations are allowed in one state or province and not allowed in bordering states or provinces. The freight travel scenario maps display the inconsistent truck regulatory environment. For example, Minnesota and Iowa do not allow a Rocky Mountain Double regardless of its weight. The Strategic Freight Study on Motor Carrier Issues points out the efficiency of larger trucks. Another example is that triple trailers are very limited in their operation and are only allowed to move freely in Montana and North Dakota.

Larger trucks may reduce trucking cost and do less road damage. LCVs can reduce road damage and shipping costs by reducing trip numbers because of the increased payload. Truck regulations throughout the region may reduce the efficiency of freight flows and reduce the competitiveness of our region.

I-15

I-16

APPENDIX J. MULTISTATE PERMIT AGREEMENTS

Multi-state Permit Agreement: Southeastern Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (SASHTO)

SASHTO has developed a permit agreement among 12 southeastern states and Puerto Rico. The southeastern states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

The purpose of the SASHTO multi-state permit agreement is to provide a routine uniform mechanism for processing multi-state permits for certain oversize and/or overweight vehicle combinations traveling between member states.

The permit system applies only to what is called the envelope vehicle which is transporting non-divisible loads. The goal of the agreement is to ease the administrative burdens of member states and the trucking industry when moving oversize/overweight vehicles and loads across state borders. Each state can issue its own permits and receive full payment for each permit issued under this agreement, supported by a permit agent.

An oversize Multi-State Permit fee is $10.00 for ten days. For the purpose of this Agreement, an envelope vehicle is defined as a truck tractor/trailer or manufactured housing combination not exceeding the following maximum limitations:

Table J.1 Maximum Dimension for Western Regional Permitting Envelope Vehicles Maximum Dimensions for Envelope Vehicle Length: 100 feet 0 inches (combination overall length including all overhang) *51 feet minimum outer axle measurement Height: 13 feet 6 inches (overall height) Width: 14 feet 0 inches (overall width including all overhang) Maximum Weight Allowed Overall Gross Vehicle Weight……..……………………………………120,000 Pounds Steering Axle..…….…………………….………………………………12,000 Pounds Single Axle.……………..………………………………….………………20,000 Pounds Tandem Axle………………………………………………….……...……40,000 Pounds Axle Group (3 or more)…..……………………….……………………...60,000 Pounds A permit issued under this agreement will be valid for a single trip not to exceed ten (10) calendar days. These permits may be obtained from the Truck Permit Office or the Louisiana Truck Center.

In addition, the permitting agreement also provides for a common set of safety regulations for escort vehicles as well as equipment requirements.

WASHTO Regional Permitting Information

WASHTO consists of 18 member states. The states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Eleven of the WASHTO states participate in the ―Western Regional Permitting‖ agreement. Seven of the WASHTO member states do not issue permits due to differences in the vehicle weight table (Table J2) and additional administrative resource

J-1 requirements. Each jurisdiction participating in the western regional permitting agreement has pre- approved routes, which include all interstates plus other routes.

Weight  600 lb. per inch of tire width  21,500 lb. per axle  43,000 lb. per tandem axle  53,000 lb. per tridem (wheelbase more than 8 ft. but not more than 13 ft.)  160,000 lb. gross weight

1. In no case may the gross weight exceed the sum of the permitted axle, tandem axle, group axle weights, or the weight specified by the permit, whichever is less.

2. A minimum of five axles is required.

3. The weight on any group of axles is determined by the weight table identified in Table J2.

Length  110 ft. overall

Width  14 feet

Height  14 feet

This agreement also covers the permitting of divisible loads moved by longer combination vehicles (LCVs). The permitted movement of an LCV is subject to the parameters established by each member jurisdiction that participates in the permitting process.

Fees are collected by the issuing jurisdiction based on the fee schedules of each jurisdiction in route.

J-2 Table J.2 Vehicle Weight Table for Western Regional Permitting

Distance in feet between first and last axle of any group of consecutive Axles axles 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 43,000 5 43,000 6 43,000 7 43,000 8 43,000 53,000 8+ 43,000 53,000 9 43,000 53,000 10 43,000 53,000 11 53,000 12 53,000 70,000 13 53,000 70,900 14 64,500 71,900 15 72,800 16 73,700 81,200 17 74,700 82,100 18 75,600 83,000 19 76,500 83,300 20 77,500 87,400 21 78,400 85,600 22 79,300 86,500 23 80,300 87,300 24 81,200 88,200 25 82,100 89,100 26 83,100 90,000 27 84,000 90,800 28 84,900 97,200 99,100 29 85,900 92,600 100,000 30 86,000 93,400 100,800 31 94,300 101,600 32 95,200 102,500 33 96,100 103,300 34 97,000 104,200

J-3 Distance in feet between first and last axle of any group of consecutive Axles axles 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 35 97,800 105,000 36 98,700 105,800 37 99,600 106,700 38 100,500 107,500 39 101,300 108,400 40 102,200 109,200 41 103,100 110,000 42 104,000 110,900 43 104,800 111,700 44 105,700 112,600 45 106,600 113,400 46 107,500 114,200 121600 47 115,100 122400 48 115,900 123200 49 116,800 124000 50 117,600 124800 51 118,400 125700 52 119300 126,500 53 120100 127,300 54 121000 128,100 135,600 143,300 151,200 55 121800 128,900 136,400 144,100 152,000 56 122600 129,700 137,200 144,900 152,800 57 123500 130,600 138,000 145,700 153,500 58 124,300 131,400 138,800 146,500 154,300 59 125,200 132,200 139,600 147,300 155,100 60 126,000 133,000 140,400 148,100 155,900 61 126,800 133,800 141,200 148,800 156,600 62 127,700 134,600 142,000 149,600 157,400 63 128,500 135,500 142,800 150,400 158,200 64 129,000 136,300 143,600 151,200 159,000 65 137,100 144,400 152,000 159,800 66 137,900 145,200 152,800 160,000 67 138,700 146,000 153,600

J-4 Distance in feet between first and last axle of any group of consecutive Axles axles 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 68 139,500 146,800 154,400 69 140,400 147,600 155,100 70 141,200 148,400 155,900 71 142,000 149,200 156,700 72 142,800 150,000 157,500 73 143,600 150,800 158,300 74 144,400 151,600 159,100 75 145,300 152,400 159,900 76 146,100 153,200 160,000 77 146,900 154,000 78 147,700 154,800 79 148,500 155,600 80 149,300 156,400 81 150,200 157,200 82 150,500 158,000 83 158,800 84 159,600 85 160,000 Source: Guide for Uniform Laws and Regulations Governing Truck Size and Weight Among the WASHTO States (May 2005)

The following map was obtained from the Idaho Transportation Department and shows the western regional permit designated routes for member state jurisdictions.

J-5

Figure J.1 Western Regional Permitting Designated Envelop Vehicle Routes for Participating States

J-6