TRAVEL INFORMATION Dial 1-800-452-9292 for travel assistance from a professional Texas travel counselor, including routing in Texas, emergency road condition information, and other travel services; or to register a comment or State Railroad Map 2016complaint about department operations.°

107°W 106°W 105°W 104°W 103°W 102°W 101°W 100°W 99°W 98°W 97°W 96°W 95°W 94°W 93°W

OKLAHOMA NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS

FANNIN Class I Railroad [! Emergency Contact Numbers DALLAM [! PERRYTON NORTH CENTRAL STRATFORD HANSFORD LIPSCOMB TEXAS COG

DGNO SPEARMAN [! [! 36°N SHERMAN LIPSCOMB 36°N Union Pacific (UP)...... (800) 848-8715 DALHART OCHILTREE DENTON COLLIN [! DECATUR Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)...... (800) 832-5452 [! [! TXNW DENTON [! MCKINNEY DCTA Kansas City Southern Railway...... (877) 527-9464 AMARILLO CORPUS CHRISTI [! DUMAS [! ROBERTS CANADIAN Number Abbreviation Railroad Operator [! ARANSAS WISE HARTLEY MOORE STINNETT SAN PATRICIO DGNO 01 TIBR Timberrock Railroad Company HUTCHINSON MIAMI HEMPHILL DGNO 02 GRR CHANNING [! [! 03 RSS Rockdale, Sandow & Southern Railroad Company 04 BLR CCTR FWWR ROCKWALL [! 05 TCT Texas City Terminal Railway POTTER PAMPA WHEELER [! CARSON ! CORPUS CHRISTI DGNO [ DGNO PNR DART 06 TM Company [! DART OLDHAM 07 TMPX Texas Municipal Power Association WHEELER [! GRAY DART ROCKWALL 08 TSE Texas South-Eastern Railroad CORPUS CHRISTI FWWR PANHANDLE VEGA NUECES MPO 09 TXTC Texas Transportation Company [! TRE DART PARKER DALLAS 12 PTRA Port Terminal Railroad Association AMARILLO [! DALLAS [! 35°N 13 SMGX San Miguel Power Plant TRE 35°N AMARILLO CLAUDE FORT [! [! 14 MMR Martin Marietta Railroad MPO GULF OF MEXICO WORTH DART DONLEY 15 BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation DEAF SMITH [! COLLINGSWORTH 16 SRN Sabine River & Northern Railroad CANYON CLARENDON TARRANT ARMSTRONG [! 19 TN Texas & Northern Railway Company [! KINGSVILLE KAUFMAN RANDALL WELLINGTON KLEBERG 20 PCN Point Comfort & Northern Railroad HEREFORD [! [! FWWR [! 23 USSC United States Steel Corporation KAUFMAN 24 TXR Texas Rock Crusher Railway Company [! 25 RPRR Rusk Palestine Railroad MEMPHIS SWISHER 26 SSC Southern Switching Company CHILDRESS 33 TEXU Texas Utilities General Company [! DIMMITT BRISCOE [! FWWR 39 DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit PARMER TULIA HALL JOHNSON [! ELLIS 41 PVS Pecos Valley Southern Railway SILVERTON CHILDRESS HOOD [! FARWELL CASTRO [! WAXAHACHIE 42 TNMR Texas- Railway Company OK [! 43 CCTR Corpus Christi Terminal Railroad QUANAH L ! A HENDERSON [ HOMA CLEBURNE [! 44 TC Temple & Central Texas Railway [! 47 SEPC Southwest Electric Power Company MULESHOE LAMB [! HARDEMAN 34°N PLAINVIEW 34°N 50 BSR Big Spring Rail CHILDRESS [! 51 WTUC West Texas Utility Company LUBBOCK FLOYD MOTLEY COTTLE VERNON 54 SHEL Shell Oil Company BAILEY WTJR HALE [! [! FOARD WICHITA [! 58 TXNW Texas Northwestern Railroad NEW MEXICO LITTLEFIELD MATADOR PADUCAH [! WICHITA [! FLOYDADA CROWELL WILBARGER SHERMAN 60 BOP Border Pacific Railroad [! FALLS MPO WICHITA FALLS -DENISON AR 61 TRE Trinity Railway Express HENRIETTA MPO K [! GRAYSON A 62 DGNO Dallas, Garland & Northeastern Railroad LAMAR KRR N MORTON S [! MONTAGUE RED RIVER A 63 TXPF Texas Pacifico Transportation Limited HOCKLEY COOKE FANNIN [! LUBBOCK PARIS [! S 65 BRG Brownsville & International Railroad CROSBYTON DICKENS KING [! [! MPO [! KNOX BAYLOR ARCHER CLAY [! TNER CLARKSVILLE MONTAGUE SHERMAN [! 66 UP Company LWR LUBBOCK [! [! GAINESVILLE [! [! [! NEW BOSTON TNER [! DICKENS GUTHRIE [! BONHAM [! 67 CMTY Capitol Metropolitan Transportation Authority COCHRAN LEVELLAND PMSW BENJAMIN SEYMOUR ARCHER CITY PARIS TEXARKANA DGNO BOWIE MPO 69 KRR Company CROSBY DELTA LUBBOCK 70 FWWR Fort Worth and Western Railroad WICHITA [! 71 SPLR South Plains Lamesa Railroad COOPER FRANKLIN SPLR DENTON TITUS 72 STPX South Texas Project Railroad COLLIN HUNT MOUNT GARZA JACK DGNO VERNON LWR FALLS DECATUR HOPKINS MOUNT PLEASANT JAYTON SULPHUR SPRINGS BLR [! 74 PMSW Plainsman Switching Company LYNN [! [! [! [! ATLANTA PLAINS HASKELL THROCKMORTON [! DENTON [! MCKINNEY TEXU MORRIS [! STONEWALL YOUNG BLR [! 75 LWR Lubbock & Western Railway [! [! DCTA ! 33°N BROWNFIELD ! POST [! JACKSBORO [ CASS [ DAINGERFIELD 33°N KENT [! GREENVILLE 77 SWRR Southwestern Railroad Company YOAKUM TAHOKA [! THROCKMORTON [! [! HASKELL [! [! LINDEN 79 KCS Kansas City Southern Railway TERRY ASPERMONT GRAHAM WISE 80 WTJR Wichita, Tillman & Jackson Railway Company, Incorporated FORT NORTH DGNO PITTSBURG CAMP TN ROCKWALL DART RAINS 81 TNER Texas Northeastern Division CENTRAL [! [! TEXAS COG FWWR DART UPSHUR MARION 82 ANR Angelina & Neches River Railroad WORTH ROCKWALL QUITMAN PARKER EMORY [! [! 83 PNR Panhandle Northern Railroad Company GAINES DAWSON BORDEN ABILENE TRE JEFFERSON PALO PINTO [! [! GAIL SCURRY WEATHERFORD FORT DALLAS WOOD GILMER 86 HTR Heart of Texas Railway ANSON BRECKENRIDGE ! WORTH [! [! ROBY SHACKELFORD ! [ [! [! [! [! [! [ HARRISON 88 TUEX TU Electric Big Brown Steam Electric Station Rail Spur [! [! PALO PINTO LONGVIEW SEMINOLE LAMESA TARRANT DALLAS KAUFMAN 90 GVSR L.P. SNYDER FISHER JONES ALBANY STEPHENS MPO MARSHALL [! [! CANTON [! SEPC 91 RVSC Rio Valley Switching Company [! FWWR KAUFMAN SMITH 94 TXGN Texas Gonzales & Northern Company GREGGLONGVIEW HOOD FWWR VAN ZANDT 99 MCSA Moscow, Camden & San Augustine Railroad [! ABILENE [! [! DALLAS ! [! COLORADO CITY SWEETWATER BAIRD [! GRANBURY [ TYLER [! [! ERATH TEXU WAXAHACHIE PANOLA ANDREWS SSC EASTLAND [! [! MARTIN HOWARD CLEBURNE ABILENE FWWR JOHNSON TYLER BLR TEXU CALLAHAN TAYLOR MPO EASTLAND GLEN ROSE MPO [! [! MITCHELL NOLAN [! ELLIS [! ATHENS [! CARTHAGE ANDREWS BSR [! NEW MEXICO BIG SPRING FWWR SOMERVELL CORSICANA HENDERSON STEPHENVILLE 32°N STANTON HENDERSON 32°N [! [! HILL TYLER RUSK BOSQUE L EL PASO COMANCHE [! NAVARRO O PERMIAN BASIN [! HILLSBORO SHELBY ECTOR MPO MIDLAND GLASSCOCK U EL PASO LOVING ! ANDERSON [ ! [! KERMIT STERLING ROBERT LEE [ I MPO [! [! RUNNELS [! MERIDIAN S EL PASO ODESSA [! [! NACOGDOCHES CENTER [! COMANCHE RUSK IA [! COLEMAN FWWR [! GARDEN CITY [! BROWN TUEX PALESTINE RPRR STERLING CITY COKE CHEROKEE MENTONE WINKLER MIDLAND [! N ! TNMR BALLINGER BROWNWOOD HAMILTON FAIRFIELD [ [! HUDSPETH [! [! WACO [! NACOGDOCHES A LIMESTONE SAN TXR HAMILTON FREESTONE AUGUSTINE [! [! COLEMAN MCLENNAN MILLS [! REEVES MONAHANS WACO GROESBECK [! SABINE CRANE CULBERSON SAN HOUSTON ANR WARD [! LUFKIN HEMPHILL EL PASO PECOS BROWNWOOD GATESVILLE WACO MPO ANR [! [! ANGELO [! PAINT ROCK GOLDTHWAITE UPTON [! [! TSE [! [! MPO SAN ANGELO CROCKETT SAN [! TSE LUFKIN CRANE IRION LEON AUGUSTINE REAGAN CORYELL [! MARLIN SIERRA BLANCA [! [! ANGELINA PVS RANKIN TOM GREEN CONCHO MCCULLOCH TEXU CENTERVILLE MERTZON [! HTR TRINITY [! BIG LAKE LAMPASAS [! [! FALLS 31°N BELL 31°N SAN SABA ROBERTSON [! [! SAN [! BELTON NEWTON ODESSA BRADY LAMPASAS GROVETON VAN HORN SAN SABA [! [! ! JASPER KILLEEN - [ FRANKLIN MADISON [! TC MCSA TEMPLE NEWTON ANGELO [! [! MPO MADISONVILLE SCHLEICHER MENARD MILAM BRYAN JASPER [! [! BRYAN - COLLEGE WOODVILLE FORT STOCKTON BURNET [! WALKER POLK [! [! STATION MPO TIBR JEFF DAVIS ELDORADO CAMERON EL PASO MENARD [! LLANO BURNET [! TYLER MASON [! BRAZOS LIVINGSTON ! [! HUNTSVILLE OZONA [ WILLIAMSON PECOS [! GRR [! COLDSPRING MASON BRYAN TMPX [! FORT DAVIS RSS [! LLANO CMTYCMTY [! BEAUMONT GRIMES CROCKETT SONORA GEORGETOWN SAN KIMBLE [! SRN [! CALDWELL [! JACINTO KOUNTZE ANDERSONMONTGOMERY [! SRN EL PASO MPO SUTTON [! BURLESON JUNCTION AUSTIN HARDIN [! CONROE MARFA TRAVIS LEE [! [! ALPINE TERRELL BLANCO CMTY LIBERTY GILLESPIE CMTY WASHINGTON SOUTH EAST SRN [! [! AUSTIN [! TEXAS RPC [! FREDERICKSBURG BEAUMONT [! ORANGE EL PASO EL PASO JOHNSON CITY CAPITAL [! GIDDINGS [! BRENHAM [! 30°N EDWARDS ORANGE [! SANDERSON AREA [! HEMPSTEAD [! 30°N [! BASTROP HAYS MPO LIBERTY PRESIDIO KERRVILLE BASTROP KERR ! AUSTIN ROCKSPRINGS [ [! BELLVILLE [! JEFFERSON LA GRANGE WALLER KENDALL SAN [! VAL VERDE MARCOS [! HARRIS BREWSTER REAL [! [! COMAL LOCKHART [! ANAHUAC BOERNE FAYETTE HOUSTON - [! HOUSTON C BANDERA CALDWELL COLUMBUS GALVESTON LEAKEY NEW [! CHAMBERS BRAUNFELS H [! [! [! AREA COUNCIL BANDERA I TXGN RICHMOND H CO [! U AHUILA BEXAR COLORADO SAN [! A SEGUIN GALVESTON H ALAMO AREA GUADALUPE [! YOAKUM FORT BEND U KINNEY ANTONIO MPO GONZALES [! A MEDINA SAN ANTONIO [! HALLETTSVILLE DEL RIO UVALDE [! [! GONZALES [! HOUSTON GALVESTON MMR [! LAVACA BRACKETTVILLE WHARTON WHARTON [! BRAZORIA SAN ANTONIO - BEXAR COUNTY HONDO WILSON [! [! ANGLETON 29°N UVALDE FLORESVILLE 29°N [! BLANCO HAYS [! CUERO JACKSON

ATASCOSA BAY CITY [! KENDALL DE WITT [! FRIO VICTORIA EDNA SAN HOUSTON - GALVESTON JOURDANTON CALDWELL KARNES CITY [! STPX MARCOS [! [! [! MAVERICK ZAVALA PEARSALL [! VICTORIA [! VICTORIA ANDERSON SAN JACINTO KARNES

MPO PCN

BOERNE COMAL GOLIAD [! [! EAGLE PASS CRYSTAL CITY MATAGORDA [! [! GRIMES [! PORT LAVACA NEW CONROE CORPUS GOLIAD O BRAUNFELS HARDIN CARRIZO SPRINGS BANDERA [! [! [! IC TILDEN [! CHRISTI CALHOUN SOUTH EAST [! BEEVILLE ALAMO AREA COTULLA [! EX GUADALUPE MONTGOMERY TEXAS RPC REFUGIO M MPO LIBERTY [!GEORGE WEST DIMMIT MCMULLEN [! F BEE REFUGIO [! SEGUIN LA SALLE LIVE OAK FO 28°N L 28°N SAN ARANSAS BEXAR LIBERTY LAREDO ROCKPORT U [! PATRICIO[! SINTON [! G SAN JIM WELLS ANTONIO [! CORPUS CHRISTI WEBB MPO CCTR MEDINA [! WALLER SAN DIEGO [! [! CORPUS CHRISTI ALICE N DUVAL CHAMBERS U LAREDO URBAN NUECES HARRIS L E TRANSPORTATION STUDY WILSON E V O LAREDO [! O [! KINGSVILLE [! ANAHUAC N [ COUNTY SEATS FLORESVILLE [! KLEBERG ATASCOSA [! HOUSTON PTRA PTRA [! UP HEBBRONVILLE [! [! SARITA FALFURRIAS BNSF 27°N LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 27°N TXPF ZAPATA [! RICHMOND JIM HOGG BROOKS KENEDY STARR ZAPATA KCS [! HIDALGO [! RAYMONDVILLE FORT BEND PHARR Other Railroads WILLACY HIDALGO GALVESTON County Boundary COUNTY MPO

TCT National or State Boundary STARR [! GALVESTON GVSR [! [! EDINBURG HIDALGO RAYMONDVILLE HARLINGEN-SAN District Boundary RVSC WILLACY BENITO MPO RIO GRANDE CITY HIDALGO BOP BRAZORIA [! WHARTON TA COUNTY MPO HARLINGEN - O [! C EDINBURG SAN BENITO TMA Metropolitan Area Boundary RVSC XI M BOP RVSC CAMERON RVSC E MPO [! M A RVSC RVSC BROWNSVILLE 26°N ANGLETON F 26°N CAMERON O U MPO Non - TMA Metropolitan Area Boundary LF L BROWNSVILLE U IP T G A AM MATAGORDA S AUL S IPA [! BRG

106°W 105°W 104°W 103°W 102°W 101°W 100°W 99°W 98°W 97°W 96°W 95°W 94°W

Copyright 2016 TEXAS Map Scale Texas Department of Transportation TRANSPORTATION Texas Department of Transportation COMMISSION Transportation Planning and Programming Division 010 20406080100Miles Tryon D. Lewis Chair Data Analysis, Mapping and Reporting Branch Notice Jeff Austin, III Commissioner Inset Scale in cooperation with the This map was produced for internal use J. Bruce Bugg Jr. Commissioner within the Texas Department of Transportation. Jeff Moseley Commissioner U.S. Department of Transportation Accuracy is limited to the validity of available Victor Vandergriff Commissioner 0 4.75 9.5 19 28.5 38 47.5 Miles Federal Highway Administration data as of December 31, 2015.

UNION PACIFIC in the SOUTHERN REGION APRIL 2017

Extensive rail infrastructure in the Gulf Coast region combined with 32,000+ 2009-2016 $1,200 total route miles of track across the western two-thirds of the U.S. enables $1,000 Union Pacifi c to offer the broadest service network in North America. Union Pacifi c has built a strong Gulf Coast infrastructure to support our chemical $800 customers by creating capacity for growth. $600

$400 This investment in track and infrastructure, as well as commercial facilities, which INFRASTRUCTURE $200 includes construction and expansion of our Storage in Transit Network (SIT), was at INVESTMENTS $0 an all-time record high in 2016. in the SOUTHERN REGION 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Projects in the Lone Star State 2009-2016 VELOCITY INFRASTRUCTURE Dallas MESQUITE % INVESTMENTS Ft. Worth 15 $4.0B in TEXAS Building the infrastructure to support innovative transportation plans requires

ROCKDALE substantial investment. Since 2009, Union Pacifi c has invested more than $4.0 billion in Texas, including $1 billion to better serve the Gulf region. In 2016, Houston Union Pacifi c replaced 42 miles of track just outside Houston and replaced San Antonio more than 180,000 ties between San Antonio and Rockdale. 2009-2016 Union Pacifi c also made substantial investments in and around Mesquite, which $100 million increased velocity on the Dallas Subdivision more than 15 percent.

We are also improving our capacity by upgrading our lines to 286 gross ton weight. On the Angleton branch alone, we have spent more than $100 million on infrastructure renewal and expansion, including 286k bridge upgrades. The project is scheduled for completion during the second quarter 2017.

Improving Capacity 2017 PLAN Encompassing more than 300 miles of track, our maintenance efforts will improve cycle times, reduce slow orders, reduce asset needs and create opportunity for growth. While there are numerous projects that are both completed and underway, the following projects have had a signifi cant impact on capacity and fl uidity for the railroad.

To improve capacity we added eight miles of double main We have track between Dallas and improved our Mesquite, and in Houston we’ve fl uidity between Pine added about 12 miles between Kansas City Bluff, Arkansas and Livonia, Sugarland and West Junction. We Louisiana by upgrading the also double-tracked around our signal system, creating major metro terminal areas to Wichita more robust run-through improve network fl uidity and capacity at both increase reliability. terminals.

Oklahoma City Memphis North Little Rock Pine Bluff

We have strengthened our Dallas Over the last few capacity to our Mexico years, we have continued TOWER 55 MESQUITE Shreveport gateways, especially at Eagle Ft. Worth to invest in projects that are Pass and Laredo, through the designed to improve fl uidity and combined addition of signal allow for growth like the re-design and upgrades, siding enhancement New confi guration of Tower 55. This was one of LIVONIA terminal facility ROCKDALE Orleans and ADDIS the railroad’s most successful Public-Private expansions - all to support Houston Partnerships in recent times, completed San Antonio MONT BELVIEU increasing traffi c demands W. JUNCTION/ in 2014. This project ultimately improved to/from Mexico. SUGARLAND ANGLETON fl uidity for customers in the region for Eagle Pass Union Pacifi c, BNSF, FWWR and - all benefi ciaries of the Laredo combined efforts of public private partnership.

Numerous siding extensions have been Brownsville added between El Paso and Shreveport, enabling In Louisiana, additional train length in we added about 10 miles of double a growing premium We have track between Livonia corridor. also made and Addis, supporting improvements at Mont growth on the route Belvieu, Texas where to New Orleans. we expanded UP’s rail terminal in support of growing customer demand.

the SOUTHERN REGION ARKANSAS KANSAS LOUISIANA MISSOURI OKLAHOMA TEXAS SIT Facility Update 2013-2019 STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT CAPACITY Union Pacifi c’s world class plastics specifi c storage-in-transit (SIT) offers our 36% in the SOUTHERN REGION customers a strong market advantage given the following: We continue to invest heavily in our SIT network as the needs of the plastics industry • Competitive rates for transit to SIT and SIT storage. continues to warrant expansion. Since 2013 and continuing through 2019 we have • Full service support with daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual reports plans to increase overall SIT capacity by 30 percent. We spent approximately available to understand both past usage and future potential needs, as well as $41 million over the past few years in the Southern Region area to expand our SIT dedicated support personnel. • Utmost fl exibility with multiple SIT yards located across the Gulf to ensure capacity. Our future investment will exceed that amount and support additional SIT consistent loaded storage. yards throughout the Gulf area, as well as in strategic destinations across the U.S. to • Union Pacifi c’s SIT expansions in Louisiana and Texas ensure capacity for future grow additional capacity for our customers. plastics growth.

Plastics Export Solution

Union Pacifi c continuously looks for ways to support customers and emerging markets. Along the Gulf Coast, that means developing solutions to meet shipper’s needs in the rapidly growing plastic resin market. Union Pacifi c recently partnered with Katoen Natie, packaging industry leaders, to offer our Dallas to Dock service that provides plastic producers with a low cost export solution for plastic pellets, expanding their reach overseas. The Dallas to Dock service transports plastic pellets in hopper cars from the Gulf region to Dallas. At Dallas, the pellets are packaged and transferred into international intermodal containers where they continue their journey to ocean ports on our premium intermodal service.

To support the Dallas to Dock service, a state-of-the-art plastic packaging facility is being constructed in Dallas in the Prime Pointe Industrial Park. Prime Pointe is a 3,000-acre rail served industrial park located in South Dallas County served by Union Pacifi c. Adjacent to Union Pacifi c’s Dallas Intermodal Terminal (DIT), the facility will have approximately 500,000 square feet of warehouse space with railroad access. KTN’s new facility, scheduled for completion in early 2018, will be capable of expanding up to fi ve times the initial size as market conditions warrant expansion. The new plastic packaging facility is strategically located in Dallas to align with empty container availability and Union Pacifi c’s premier intermodal service to the West Coast for export.

Safest Railroad in North America Back to Back Looking Ahead

Union Pacifi c achieved Union Pacifi c continues to have a its best annual strong relationship and presence employee-safety rate within the chemical industry as one of the largest transporters of The Courage Pledge in 2016, marking the chemical products in the nation.

I have the courage to care. safest year in its Worn with a lion’s pride, it 154-year history. The We are committed to the chemical means those I work with industry and to grow with our customers’ needs while will have my back, and I employee reportable will have theirs. I pledge providing world-class transportation of chemical injury rate is measured to shield myself and my products safely across the railroad. team from harm. I will by injuries for every 200,000 employee hours worked. The company’s employee take action to keep them Our dedicated team of marketing and sales safe, by fi xing an unsafe reportable injury rate declined 14 percent from 0.87 in 2015 to 0.75 in 2016. situation, addressing an professionals are here to meet your transportation unsafe behavior or stopping requirements. Please continue to communicate to us the line. In turn, I will have We also made safety gains with an approximately three percent improvement in the where you intend to grow so we can meet your needs the courage to accept with continued expansion of our network. Thank you for the same actions from 2016 derailment rate compared with 2015. The reportable rail equipment incident your business. my coworkers, who care rate per million train miles dropped from 3.10 in 2015 to 3.02 in 2016. enough to correct my path. We wear this badge out of respect for each other Union Pacifi c employs a variety of safety and risk mitigation activities, including the and those who have gone before us. On my watch, we Courage to Care personal commitment which empowers employees to look out will all go home safe to our for their peers and “stop the line” on any operation that could result in an incident. Kari Kirchhoefer families every day. Vice President & General Manager – Chemicals Union Pacifi c Railroad

UNION PACIFIC in the SOUTHERN REGION

TEXAS Home to a Transportaon Leader

For more than a century, BNSF Railway Company has played an important role in the Texas economy. Headquartered in Fort Worth, BNSF employs a workforce of more than 8,900 people in Texas, with an annual payroll exceeding $1 billion.

Nearly 15 percent of BNSF’s vast 32,500-mile rail network, including sections of the Transcon and Midcon Corridors, is in Texas, supporting significant operations in 20 communities and BNSF Railway Service in ensuring that goods and commerce flow in and out of the Lone Star State. Texas - 2016

Through our strategically placed intermodal facilities in Alliance (Fort Worth) and Houston, and Employees our facilities in El Paso and Eagle Pass at the Mexican border, BNSF delivers a wide variety of 8,901 consumer products to Texas retailers and businesses. Among the items are packaged goods, Payroll paper products, clothes, appliances, electronics and automobiles. In fact, BNSF is the national $1,003,475,551 leader in intermodal transportation (truck trailers and containers). BNSF Foundation Giving We also deliver cleaner-burning Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming and Montana to $3,213,514

provide the energy that helps power the Texas economy, lumber and other building materials from the Northwest and the Southeast to satisfy construction demands throughout the state, Lines Operated and fertilizer from plants around the country to feed crops on the Texas plains. Route miles owned: 2,627 Route miles trackage rights: 2,342 In addition, we deliver Texas products to the world. Our facilities on the Gulf of Mexico, Carloadings including the Ports of Houston, Beaumont, Galveston, Brownsville and Corpus Christi, provide Originated: 737,596 a vital link to the state’s petroleum and chemical industries, allowing them to thrive in a global Handled within state: 5,415,879 economy. We also help Texas farmers move agricultural products to every corner of the world, and with our innovative transload facilities, we are linking the state’s ethanol industry to Terminated: 1,373,059 market. Major Facilities Annually, BNSF moves more than 5.4 million carloads of freight in Texas, helping to reduce truck traffic and congestion on our highways and reducing emissions. We also use new Corporate Headquarters cleaner-burning, more fuel-efficient Fort Worth locomotives that are able to move, Rail Yards on average, a ton of freight 500 Alliance, Amarillo, Beaumont, Brownwood, miles on one gallon of fuel. Cleburne, Dayton (leased), El Paso, Fort Worth, Gainesville, Galveston, Houston, Laredo, Since 2014, BNSF has been Longview, Lubbock, Saginaw, San Antonio, instrumental in locating 56 new or Sherman, Silsbee, Slaton, Somerville, expanded facilities in Texas, Sweetwater, Teague, Temple, Wichita Falls creating approximately 1,140 jobs and more than $994 million in Intermodal Facilities investments. Projects include Alliance (Fort Worth), El Paso, Pearland (Houston) Gestamp in Amarillo, Jefferson Refinery in Beaumont, and Kinder Morgan in Houston. BNSF Facts Our contribution to Texas doesn’t Operating in 28 States and 3 Canadian Provinces end at the tracks. In addition, the BNSF Freight Cars: 72,000 BNSF Foundation contributed more Locomotives: 8,000 than $3.2 million to various local Route Miles: 32,500 charities in 2016. Number of Employees: 41,000 Military: 7,200 veterans employed

Revised 3-1-17

Capital Commitments In 2017, BNSF plans to invest approximately $255 million in its network in Texas, and approximately $3.4 billion in capital expansion and maintenance across its system. The largest component of the plan will be to replace and maintain BNSF’s core network and related assets to ensure BNSF continues to operate a safe and reliable network. In addition, the plan includes investing in expansion projects, continuing implementation of positive train control (PTC), and acquiring new locomotives, freight cars, and other equipment. In 2016, BNSF invested approximately $400 million in Texas for capital projects.

BNSF 2016 Volume—Texas Coal About 10 percent of the electricity produced in the United States is generated from coal hauled by BNSF. More than 90 percent of the coal BNSF hauls comes from the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming and Montana and is 60 percent lower in sulfur than most other U.S. coal sources.

Agricultural BNSF is one of the largest grain‐hauling railroads in the United States. In fact, BNSF hauls enough grain to supply 900 million people with a year’s supply of bread. Approximately 50 percent of the agricultural commodies traffic BNSF hauls is transported to export points in the Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico, Mexico and the Great Lakes.

Consumer Many items found in local retail stores, restaurants and automobile dealerships were shipped on a BNSF train. Each year BNSF moves about 10 percent of the vehicles sold in the United States. BNSF is among the world’s top transporters of intermodal traffic, and the only western U.S. railroad offering direct intermodal service to the Southeast, as well as the fastest intermodal service to the Northeast.

Industrial BNSF is a leader in transporng forest products, chemicals, metals and other products that drive our economy. Each year BNSF transports enough lumber to build more than 500,000 homes; enough asphalt to lay a single lane road four mes around the equator; and enough coiled sheet steel to lay the unrolled coils end to end 12 mes between New York City and Seale, WA.

For more information contact:

Joe Faust Bobby Strong BNSF Emergency Hotline: Community Affairs Franchise Development 1‐800‐832‐5452 817‐867‐6427 817‐867‐6697 For more informaon, Lindsay Mullins Rick Wilson please visit our website at State Government Affairs Port Business Development www.bnsf.com 512‐473‐2823 817‐867‐6557

Amy Hawkins Economic Development: Federal Government Affairs James O’Donley 202‐347‐8662 South Texas 817‐867‐6137 Paul Crisna Public Private Partnerships Janet Black 817‐352‐6316 North Texas 817‐867‐6526

Revised 3-1-17

Designating the Texas Highway Freight Network May 11, 2017 Texas Freight Advisory Committee

Acronyms CRFC Critical Rural Freight Corridor CUFC Critical Urban Freight Corridor FAST Act Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NFP National Freight Program NHFN National Highway Freight Network PHFS Primary Highway Freight System TFMP Texas Freight Mobility Plan THFN Texas Highway Freight Network TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation TxFAC Texas Freight Advisory Committee USDOT US Department of Transportation

The Texas Highway Freight Network

The Texas Highway Freight Network (THFN) is the portion of the State's highway network most critical to the movement of freight. The designation of the THFN was a key policy outcome of the adopted Texas Freight Mobility Plan (TFMP), and it is the part of the highway network in Texas that is evaluated for freight needs and recommendations. The THFN is comprised of the following:  Texas' portion of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) designated National Highway Freight Network;  Texas Highway Trunk System (Trunk System) (codified in the Texas Administrative Code Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 16, Subchapter B); and  Other corridors significant to moving freight in Texas, systematically identified in the THFN designation process.

The definition and designation of these components are summarized below.

The National Highway Freight Network

NNationalational Highway Freight Network (NHFN) – The NHFN, defined by USDOT, is currently comprised of the following components:  PrimaryPrimary Highway Freight System (PHFS) – The PHFS was designated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) based on 8 factors: 1. Origins and destinations of freight movement in the United States; 2. Total freight tonnage and value of freight moved by highways; 3. Percentage of annual average daily truck traffic in the annual average daily traffic on principal arterials; 4. Annual average daily truck traffic on principal arterials; 5. Access to land and maritime ports of entry; 6. Access to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas; 7. Access to population centers; and 8. Network connectivity.

Texas’ portion of the PHFS totals 3,727.77 miles.  Non-Non---PHFSPHFS Interstates - The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act included the entirety of the Interstate System—including Interstate facilities not located on the PHFS—in the NHFN. The FHWA will update the maps and tables on a periodic basis, incorporating any Interstate System routes missing currently, as well as roads added to the Interstate System.

The FAST Act restricts National Freight Program (NFP) funding on Non-PHFS Interstates in states deemed high mileage states, defined as containing more than two percent of the National PHFS. Texas is classified as a high mileage state and thus, cannot use NFP funding on Non- PHFS Interstate.

In addition, as part of the FAST Act, USDOT allocated additional miles to each state, based on its PHFS mileage, to designate to the NHFN. These miles are eligible for NHP funds and are referred to as:  CriticalCritical Urban Freight CorridorsCorridors (CUFC(CUFC)))) –Key freight highway facilities in urbanized areas (defined by the U.S. Census Bureau); and  CriticalCritCriticaicaCritical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFC(CRFC)))) – Key freight highways located outside of urbanized areas.

Texas may designate as CUFCs a maximum of 10 percent of the PHFS mileage in the State (372.78 miles); and may designate as CRFCs a maximum of 20 percent of the PHFS mileage in the State (745.55 miles).

The Texas Highway Trunk System

The Texas Highway Trunk System is a network of rural divided highways that complements and includes elements of the Interstate Highway System. The Trunk System is limited to a maximum of 11,500 miles, and it is chosen by the Texas Transportation Commission as recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Executive Director. Routes in the Trunk System should meet one of the following criteria: 1. Maximizing the use of existing four-lane divided roadways; 2. Minimizing circuitous or indirect routing; 3. Connecting with principal roadways from adjacent states; 4. Connecting with principal deep water ports with channel depths of 40 feet or more; 5. Connecting with principal Mexican ports of entry; 6. Serving significant military or other national security installations; 7. Serving tourism or recreational areas; 8. Comprising major truck routes; 9. Which are within 25 miles or less of cities of 10,000 population or greater; 10. Closing gaps in the existing state highway system; and 11. Providing system connectivity.

Defining and Designating the Texas Highway Freight Network

The THFN is designated through a systematic, data- driven and stakeholder-informed process, which is Evaluate and score corridors summarized to the right.

StepStepStep 111 – The evaluation of corridors was conducted Add in any missing Trunk System Corridors using a customized designation tool that used multicriteria analysis to score every segment on every Compare existing network to corridor. Input from stakeholders across the state as develop revised THFN well as the Texas Freight Advisory Committee (TxFAC) informed the development and weighting of the From the THFN,THFN, designate CRFCs criteria. From the THFN, designate CRFCs

StepStepStep 222 – Once the segments were scored, the results Incorporate MPOMPOMPOinput on CUFCsCUFCsCUFCs for the corridors in the top three and top four scores were compared against the adopted THFN, the Trunk System and input from stakeholders obtained through a series of eleven statewide workshops. The process resulted in two alternatives for the scored THFN as follows:

NHFNNHFNNHFN+ Trunk NHFNNHFNNHFN+ Trunk System + all rural System + all rural corridors scoring corridors scoring above the mean ––– at the mean and existing THFNTHFNTHFN above –––existing corridors scoring THFNTHFNTHFNscoring below the mean below the mean Draft Scored THFNTHFNTHFN:THFN: Draft Scored THFNTHFNTHFN:THFN: Alternative 111 Alternative 111

Exhibit 1: Draft Scored Texas Highway Freight Network Scenario 1

Rank Highway Mileage Rank Highway Mileage

1 IH 10 877 26 SH 35 181 2 IH 20 634 27 SH 36 180 3 US 87 568 28 IH 40 177 4 US 59 549 29 US 285 167 5 US 281 544 30 SH 31 149 6 US 83 508 31 SH 105 147 7 US 90 453 32 US 181 143 8 US 67 440 33 IH 37 143 9 US 82 436 34 US 96 133 10 IH 35 405 35 US 271 131 11 US 77 386 36 SL 8 127 12 US 84 380 37 IH 27 124 13 US 287 345 38 US 385 121 14 US 69 337 39 SH 71 116 15 US 277 318 40 US 380 115 16 US 190 311 41 SH 137 114 17 US 62 290 42 SH 114 113 18 SH 6 286 43 US 54 110 19 IH 45 282 44 US 377 108 20 US 290 259 45 US 175 108 21 US 79 251 46 IH 35E 97

22 US 183 246 47 US 57 96 23 IH 30 223 48 SH 130 86 24 US 60 210 49 IH 35W 85 25 SH 21 186 50 SH 158 84

EEExhibitE 2: Draft Scored Texas Highway Freight Network Scenario 2

Rank Highway Mileage Rank Highway Mileage

1 IH 10 877 26 SH 35 199 2 US 83 640 27 SH 21 186 3 IH 20 634 28 SH 36 180 4 US 87 568 29 IH 40 177 5 US 59 549 30 US 285 167 6 US 281 544 31 SH 31 149 7 US 90 527 32 SH 105 147 8 US 67 440 33 SH 137 147 9 US 82 436 34 US 181 143 10 US 287 419 35 IH 37 143 11 IH 35 405 36 US 96 133 12 US 77 386 37 US 271 131 13 US 84 380 38 SL 8 127 14 US 277 354 39 IH 27 124 15 US 69 337 40 SH 71 116 16 US 190 337 41 US 380 115 17 SH 6 305 42 SH 114 113 18 US 385 304 43 US 54 112 19 US 62 290 44 US 377 108 20 IH 45 282 45 US 175 108 21 US 290 259 46 SH 158 107 22 US 79 251 47 IH 35E 97 23 US 183 246 48 US 57 96 24 IH 30 223 49 SH 130 86

25 US 60 210 50 IH 35W 85

StepStepStep 333 ––– The next step was to designate CRFCs from the Draft scored THFN. The process and logic for this step are summarized below.

Identify Candidate Develop CRFCsCRFCsCRFCs Develop CRFCsCRFCsCRFCs CRFCsCRFCsCRFCs Option 1Option 1 Option 2Option 2

• Meets FAST Act • First 745 miles • First 745 miles requirements meeting three criteria meeting three criteria • Connects to PHFS › Highest scoring › Highest scoring corridors in each corridors statewide • Scored above region the mean › Connects to PHFS › Connects to PHFS • Supported by › Supported by stakeholders › Supported by stakeholders stakeholders • Resulted in 2,198 miles

The resulting CRFCs for each option are listed in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 3: CRFCs Identified in Option 1

Exhibit 4: CRFCs Identified in Option 2

SSStepStepteptep 444 ––– Under the FAST Act, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) with a population of more than 500,000 are responsible for identifying CUFCs in their urbanized areas, in consultation with TxDOT. TxDOT provided MPOs with a mileage guideline based on population. MPOs selected and submitted their CUFC proposals to TxDOT, which were then incorporated into the THFN.

Exhibit 5: MPO Submitted CUFCs

This process resulted in two alternatives for the overall draft scored THFN, two options for the designation of 745 miles of CRFCs, and one set of CUFCs proposed by MPOs. The resulting four combinations are shown in Exhibit 6 through Exhibit 9.

Exhibit 6: Draft Scored THFN Alternative 1, CRFC Option 1

Exhibit 7: Draft Scored THFN Alternative 1, CRFC Option 2

Exhibit 8: Draft Scored THFN Alternative 2, CRFC Option 1

Exhibit 9: Draft Scored THFN Alternative 2, CRFC Option 2

Report prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN UPDATE Multimodal Freight Network Designation

May 11, 2017 Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Designating a Multimodal Freight Network

. Role – Promotes safe and efficient freight movement statewide – Carries the majority of the state’s freight movements – Connects the state to domestic and statewide trading partners – Supports the state’s economy and exports . Benefits – Focuses limited resources on the network moving the majority of freight – Preserves the freight network for the movement of freight – Encourages private investment

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 2

1 TEXAS HIGHWAY FREIGHT NETWORK DESIGNATION Draft System

3

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Purpose and Objective of the Network Designation

. Key TFMP policy outcome was designation of Texas Highway Freight Network (THFN) . FAST Act requires designating Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFCs) and Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs) to become part of the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) . The purpose of the system designation process is to employ an objective, data-driven process that is also stakeholder informed . THFN will be the basis of needs assessment, project identification, recommendations and implementation

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 34

2 Designation Process

Designate critical Develop criteria Develop draft THFN urban and rural based on goals corridors

Incorporate & Quantify value for compare against Draft final system each criteria Trunk System and for TxFAC approval existing network

Rank facilities Score each criteria based on total weighted scores

Weight criteria Sum all criteria based on input

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 5

TxFAC Input on Weighting

Access and Connectivity Metrics Goods Movement Metrics

5% 15% 11% 5% 15% 5% Equally Equally More More Less Not Sure Less

65% Not Sure 79%

Supply Chain Metrics Economic Metrics

9% 0% 0% 11% Equally 5% Equally More 29% More Less Less 62% Not Sure Not Sure

84%

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 6

3 TxFAC Weighting Results

. Based on polling and input received following the March 9, 2017 meeting – Economic criteria – 10% – Goods Movement criteria – 30% – Supply Chain criteria – 30% – Market Access criteria – 30% . Next step was to poll Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and District Engineers (DEs)

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 7

MPO Results

ECONOMIC CRITERIA GOODS MOVEMENT CRITERIA

10% 0% At 30% 0% At 10% 22% 30% More Heavily More Heavily Less Heavily 0% Less Heavily Not Sure Not Sure

60% 78%

SUPPLY CHAIN CRITERIA MARKET ACCESS CRITERIA

0% 11% 0% At 30% At 30% 11% More Heavily More Heavily 40% Less Heavily Less Heavily 60% Not Sure Not Sure 0% 78%

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 8

4 District Engineers Results

Economic Metrics Goods Movement Criteria

23% 19% 12% At 10% 0% More Heavily At 30% 8% Less Heavily 23% More Heavily Not Sure Less Heavily 65% Not Sure 50%

Supply Chain Criteria Market Access Criteria

7% 11% At 30% 39% At 30% More Heavily More Heavily 46%

43% Less Heavily 35% Less Heavily Not Sure Not Sure

11% 8%

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 9

Weighting Results

Economic Metrics Goods Movement Metrics TxFAC supported < 25% TxFAC supported > 25% MPO and DE supported MPO and DE supported >30% 30%

Supply Chain Metrics Market Access Criteria TxFAC supported > 25% TxFAC supported > 25% MPO and DE supported 30% or less MPO and DE supported < 30%

Resulting Weighting Economic – 20% Supply Chain – 25% Goods Movement – 30% Market Access – 25%

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 10

5 Developing the THFN Scenarios

. THFN scenario development process – 1) All scored routes – 2) Routes scoring above the mean (top 3 scores) – 3) Routes scoring at mean and above (top 4 scores) – 4) Scored routes compared to existing THFN – 5) Scored routes compared to Trunk System – 6) Scenarios for potential revised THFN

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 11

THFN – All Scored Corridors

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 12

6 Scored Network– Top 3 and Top 4 Scores

Top 3 Scores Top 4 Scores

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 13

Scored Network Compared to Existing THFN

Top 3 Scores Top 4 Scores

Covers 67% of existing THFN Covers 84% of existing THFN

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 14

7 Scored Network Compared to Trunk System

Top 3 Scores Top 4 Scores

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 15

Potential Revised THFN

. Scenario 1 – Add any missing Trunk System – Eliminate existing facilities not in top 4 score ranges (below the mean) – Add any rural facilities not on system that scored in top 3 . Scenario 2 – Add any missing Trunk System – Eliminate any facilities that did not score in top 4 (below the mean) – Add any rural facilities not on system that scored in top 4

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 16

8 Potential Revised THFN– Scenario 1

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 17

Potential Revised TFHN – Scenario 2

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 18

9 TxFAC Discussion and Input

. Add routes to existing THFN? – Criteria for doing so? • Top 3 scoring range • Top 4 scoring range • Other? . Delete routes from existing THFN? – Criteria for doing so? • Top 3 scoring range • Top 4 scoring range • Other? . Other strategic routes?

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 19

CRITICAL URBAN FREIGHT CORRIDORS Draft

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 20

10 Critical Urban Freight Corridors

. MPOs >500,000 population submitted corridors – Resulted in 288 miles – Represents 77% of total CUFC mileage . TxDOT to designate remaining 86 miles MPOs Submitting CUFCs – Input from TxFAC Alamo Area MPO Capital Area MPO – Consultation with MPOs El Paso MPO Hidalgo MPO – Input from workshops Houston-Galveston Area Council North Central Texas Council of Governments

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Top 3 Scored THFN with MPO Identified CUFCs

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 22

11 Top 4 Scored THFN with MPO Identified CUFCs

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 23

DESIGNATING CRITICAL RURAL FREIGHT CORRIDORS

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

12 Designating Critical Rural Freight Corridors

. TxDOT to designate 745 miles . Identifying candidate corridors – Identified corridors meeting requirements in FAST Act – Focused on providing connectivity to PHFS – Examined highest scoring corridors out of that subset – Compared to input from stakeholder workshops and DEs . Resulted in 2,198 miles of candidate corridors . From this, two example options for getting to 745 miles are developed – Option 1- Highest scoring corridors in each region that connects to PHFS and has stakeholder support – Option 2 – First 745 miles statewide with the highest score that connect to PHFS with stakeholder support

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 25

Candidates for Critical Rural Freight Corridors

CRFC ID Description Miles 1 SH 137 from IH 20 to IH 10 110 2 SH 288 from Houston to Lake Jackson 18 3 SH 31 from Corsicana to Tyler 58 4 SH 31 from Waco to Corsicana 46 SH 34/Various from Corpus Christi to Lake 5 Jackson 135 6 SH 35 from Houston to Lake Jackson 15 7 SH 6 from IH 20 to Waco 118 SH 6/US 190/FM1774 from Waco to 8 Houston 104 US 271/ SH 300 from Mount Pleasant to 10 Longview 38 11 US 281 from IH 20 to San Antonio 185 US 287/US 70 from Amarillo to Wichita 12 Falls 198 13 US 290 from Austin to Houston 87 14 US 59/US 96 from IH 20 to Beaumont 151 15 US 59 from Texarkana to Marshall 56 16 US 69 from Tyler to Beaumont 138 17 US 75 from Anna to Sherman 11 18 US 79 from Austin to IH 45 91 19 US 79 from IH 45 to Jacksonville (US 69) 48 20 US 83 from US 84 to IH 10 122 21 US 84 from Lubbock to IH 20 96 22 US 84 from US 60 to Lubbock 73 23 US 87 from IH 20 to San Angelo 77 24 US287/US82/US81 from Wichita Falls to Pecan Acres 80 25 US 277/US 85 from Del Rio to IH 35 143 Total Miles 2198

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 26

13 Example Option 1: Proposed Texas CRFC

. Selected corridors in east and west with: – Highest score – Connectivity to PHFS – Stakeholder support – Balance of mileage CRFC ID Description Miles 1 SH 137 from IH 20 to IH 10 110 2 SH 288 from Houston to Lake Jackson 18 3 SH 31 from Corsicana to Tyler 58 4 SH 31 from Waco to Corsicana 46 7 SH 6 from IH 20 to Waco 118 SH 6/US 190/FM1774 from Waco to 8 Houston 104 US 271/ SH 300 from Mount Pleasant to 10 Longview 38 13 US 290 from Austin to Houston 87 17 US 75 from Anna to Sherman 11 23 US 87 from IH 20 to San Angelo 77 24 US287/US82/US81 from Wichita Falls to Pecan Acres 80

Total Miles 747

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 27

Example Option 2: Proposed Texas CRFC

. Selected first 745 miles with: – Highest score – Connectivity to PHFS – Stakeholder support – Balance of mileage

CRFC ID Description Miles SH 34/Various from Corpus Christi to Lake 5 Jackson 135 8 SH 6/US 190/FM1774 from Waco to Houston 104 12 US 287/US 70 from Amarillo to Wichita Falls 198 16 US 69 from Tyler to Beaumont 138 18 US 79 from Austin to IH 45 91 US287/US82/US81 from Wichita Falls to 24 Pecan Acres 80

Total Miles 745

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 28

14 Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

. Alternative 1A . Alternative 2A – Preliminary THFN Scenario 1 – Preliminary THFN Scenario 2 – CUFCs – CUFCs – Option 1 for CRFCs – Option 1 for CRFCs . Alternative 1B . Alternative 2B – Preliminary THFN Scenario 1 – Preliminary THFN Scenario 2 – CUFCs – CUFCs – Option 2 for CRFCs – Option 2 for CRFCs

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 29

Alternative 1A: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

El Paso

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 30

15 Alternative 1B: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

El Paso

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 31

Alternative 2A: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

El Paso

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 32

16 Alternative 2B: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

El Paso

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 33

TxFAC Discussion and Input

. Critical urban freight corridors – What drives designation? • Piecemeal designation based on projects • Designation based on establishing connected network . Critical rural freight corridors – What drives designation? • Designation tool score • Connectivity to NHFN • Stakeholder input (workshops and DEs) – Input on specific facilities

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 34

17 Next Steps on THFN Designation

. Obtain TxFAC input – Agree on date for submitting input . Revise – THFN – CUFCs – CRFCs . Distribute final draft network to TxFAC for approval – Goal is to be approved by May 31 – Submit CUFC and CRFC to FHWA for approval by July 15

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 35

RAIL SYSTEM

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

18 Freight Rail Network - Discussion

. All Class 1 railroads are included in National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) and the TMFN . All shortlines included on TMFN

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 37

Freight Rail Network

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 38

19 PORTS AND WATERWAYS

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Criteria for Designating Ports and Waterways on NMFN

. Ports and waterways – All ports handling 2,000,000 short tons of cargo or more – U.S. inland and intracoastal waterways specified in section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 40

20 Texas Ports and Waterways on NMFN

. Ports – Beaumont – Brownsville – Calhoun – Corpus Christi – Galveston – Freeport – Houston – Port Arthur – Texas City – Victoria . Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 41

AIRPORTS

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

21 Texas Airports

. Airports on NMFN – The 6 Texas airports that rank in the FAA top 50 air cargo airports based on tonnage – Plus Laredo because of freight importance and location

Airport

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 43

PRELIMINARY TMFN

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

22 Updating the Texas Multimodal Freight Network (TMFN)

. Next steps – Add THFN based on input on THFN alternatives – Feedback on non-highway modes • TxDOT has submitted comments to USDOT on NMFN • Should Texas network extend beyond the national network?

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 45

23

Texas Multimodal Freight Network Designation Map Packet May 11, 2017

Table of Contents

Freight Highway Network Scoring 1 Freight Highway Network Scoring – Top 3 Scores Ranges 2 Freight Highway Network Scoring – Top 4 Score Ranges 3 Top 3 Scoring Highway Freight Network Compared to Existing THFN 4 Top 4 Scoring Highway Freight Network Compared to Existing THFN 5 Top 3 Scoring Highway Freight Network Compared to Trunk System 6 Top 3 Scoring Highway Freight Network Compared to Trunk System 7 Potential Revised THFN- Scenario 1 8 Potential revised THFN- Scenario 2 9 Top 3 Scored Highway Freight Network with MPO Identified Critical Urban 10 Freight Corridors (CUFCs) Alamo Area MPO CUFCs 11 Capital Area MPO CUFCs 12 El Paso MPO CUFCs 13 Hidalgo MPO CUFCs 14 Houston-Galveston Area Council CUFCs 15 North Central Texas Council of Governments CUFCs 16 Identified Candidates for Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs) 17 Table of CRFC Candidate Corridors 18 Example Option 1: Proposed Texas CRFC 19 Example Option 1: Proposed Texas CRFC 20 Alternative 1A: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network 21 Alternative 1B: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network 22 Alternative 2A: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network 23 Alternative 2B: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network 24 Texas Rail Network 25 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Rail Network 26 Houston-Galveston Area Rail Network 27

i

Final Highway Freight Network Designation Scoring

1

Highway Freight Network Scoring – Top 3 Score Ranges

2

Highway Freight Network Scoring- Top 4 Score Ranges

3

Top 3 Scoring Highway Freight Network Compared to Existing THFN

4

Top 4 Scoring Highway Freight Network Compared to Existing THFN

5

Top 3 Scoring Highway Freight Network Compared to Trunk System

6

Top 4 Scoring Highway Freight Network Compared to Trunk System

7

Potential Revised THFN – Scenario 1

8

Potential Revised THFN- Scenario 2

9

Top 3 Scored Highway Freight Network with MPO Identified Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFCs)

10

Alamo Area MPO Identified CUFCs

11

Capital Area MPO Identified CUFCs

12

El Paso MPO Identified CUFCs

13

Hidalgo MPO Identified CUFCs

14

Houston- Galveston Area Council Identified CUFCs

15

North Central Texas Council of Governments Identified CUFCs

16

Identified Candidates for Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs)

17

Table of CRFC Candidate Corridors

CRFC Description Miles ID 1 SH 137 from IH 20 to IH 10 110 2 SH 288 from Houston to Lake Jackson 18 3 SH 31 from Corsicana to Tyler 58 4 SH 31 from Waco to Corsicana 46 5 SH 34/Various from Corpus Christi to Lake Jackson 135 6 SH 35 from Houston to Lake Jackson 15 7 SH 6 from IH 20 to Waco 118 8 SH 6/US 190/FM1774 from Waco to Houston 104 10 US 271/ SH 300 from Mount Pleasant to Longview 38 11 US 281 from IH 20 to San Antonio 185 12 US 287/US 70 from Amarillo to Wichita Falls 198 13 US 290 from Austin to Houston 87 14 US 59/US 96 from IH 20 to Beaumont 151 15 US 59 from Texarkana to Marshall 56 16 US 69 from Tyler to Beaumont 138 17 US 75 from Anna to Sherman 11 18 US 79 from Austin to IH 45 91 19 US 79 from IH 45 to Jacksonville (US 69) 48 20 US 83 from US 84 to IH 10 122 21 US 84 from Lubbock to IH 20 96 22 US 84 from US 60 to Lubbock 73 23 US 87 from IH 20 to San Angelo 77 24 US287/US82/US81 from Wichita Falls to Pecan Acres 80 25 US 277/US 85 from Del Rio to IH 35 143

Total Miles 2,198

18

Example Option 1: Proposed Texas CRFC

19

Example Option 2: Proposed Texas CRFC

20

Alternative 1A: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

21

Alternative 1B: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

22

Alternative 2A: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

23

Alternative 2B: Proposed Texas Highway Freight Network

24

Texas Rail Network

25

Dallas-Fort Worth–Arlington Rail Network

26

Houston-Galveston Area Rail Network

27

TEXAS PORT CONNECTIVITY STUDY Update from TxDOT Maritime Division

May 11, 2017 Texas Port Connectivity Study May 11, 2017

Overview

. Purpose of the study is to identify roadway and rail projects that will enhance connectivity to Texas seaports – Focus on first/last mile connectors – Roadway projects will be evaluated for eligibility for potential inclusion in the UTP – Study will serve as a basis for project selection for any port access funding from the State (i.e., similar to Rider 48) . Final implementation strategy will include list of connectivity issues paired with prioritized project list to address the issues – Identified projects will be mapped to potential state and federal funding sources (e.g., TMF, TIGER, and FASTLANE) . Consultant team is working with ports, TxDOT Districts, MPOs, and local and county governments

Texas Port Connectivity Study May 11, 2017 2

1 Project Status

. Completed assessment of current and future road and rail connectivity at each port . Currently in the early stages of identifying and developing alternatives, including assessing feasibility and developing a high level business case for viable alternatives . Major upcoming deliverables: – Technical memorandum for proposed alternatives: July 31, 2017 – Technical memorandum for funding & financing options: August 31, 2017 – Implementation strategy: November 30, 2017

Texas Port Connectivity Study May 11, 2017 3

2 TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN UPDATE Freight Modal Updates

May 11, 2017 Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Modal Updates

. Objectives of modal profiles include: – Assess the multimodal network available for freight movement – Document the role and performance the modes play in supporting trade and commerce – Identify the deficiencies and bottlenecks impacting freight movement – Develop recommendations to enhance performance of the network . TFMP update includes: – Freshen data – Validate needs and recommendations – Designation of Texas Multimodal Freight Network

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 2

1 PORTS AND WATERWAYS

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Texas Ports and Waterways

. Texas has the largest port system in the Gulf . Over 1,000 miles of navigable channels . A 423-mile stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway . Handles over 600 million tons or over 20 percent of national waterborne trade annually

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

2 Growth in Texas Port Volumes

. Texas ports’ share of total U.S. volumes total grew from 19.5% in 2007 to 21.8% in 2015 . Largest growth in Houston , Corpus Christ and Beaumont

Texas High Use Harbors, Millions of Tons, Domestic plus Foreign

80 Houston Beaumont 60 Corpus Christi Texas City 40 Port Arthur Freeport 20 Calhoun Galveston 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 5

Growth in Texas Port Volumes

. Domestic tonnage is half the level of foreign tonnage – Houston volumes declined during recession, followed by large increase from 2009 to 2015. – Decrease in domestic in Corpus Christi followed by large increase from 2009 to 2015 – Steady increase for Beaumont in domestic. – Texas share of U.S. domestic grew from 12.5% in 2007 to 16.2% in 2013

. Foreign tons relatively flat, growth in Houston in 2010 and 2011, decline from 2011 to 2015

Domestic Foreign 80 Houston 200 Houston 60 Beaumont 150 Corpus Christi Beaumont Corpus Christi 40 Texas City 100 Texas City Port Arthur 20 Port Arthur Freeport 50 Freeport Calhoun 0 Calhoun Galveston 0 Galveston

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 6

3 Major Shifts in Texas Port Volumes

Inbound

200 2100 Crude Petroleum

2229 Petroleum Products

150 3200 Chemicals excl. Fertilizers

6168 Food and Food Products 100 5354 Primary Metal Products

4349 Sand, Gravel, Shells, Clay, Salt and Slag 50

4600 Non-Ferrous Ores and Scrap

7000 Manufactured Goods 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 7

Major Shifts in Texas Port Volumes

Outbound

200 2100 Crude Petroleum

2229 Petroleum Products

150 3200 Chemicals excl. Fertilizers

6168 Food and Food Products 100 5354 Primary Metal Products

4349 Sand, Gravel, Shells, Clay, Salt 50 and Slag 4600 Non-Ferrous Ores and Scrap

0 7000 Manufactured Goods 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 8

4 Shifts in Crude Oil Port Volumes

. Crude Oil – Decreases in inbound volumes have occurred across most ports – Increases in outbound volumes have been most significant in Corpus Christi, Beaumont and Houston

Inbound Crude Oil Volumes by Port Outbound Crude Oil Volumes by Port

60 25 Houston Houston 50 Beaumont 20 Beaumont Corpus Christi 40 Corpus Christi Texas City 15 Texas City 30 Port Arthur 10 Port Arthur 20 Freeport Freeport Calhoun 5 10 Calhoun Galveston Galveston 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 9

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) Volumes

Crude Oil Volumes by GIWW Segment 20 Texas 15

10 Galveston-Sabine River

5 CorpusCorpus Christii-GalvestonChristi-Galveston

0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total Volumes Texas Portion of GIWW

40

30 Eastbound Westbound

20

10

0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 10

5 Ports Challenges

. Increasing demand stemming from: – Expansion of domestic energy production – Oil and Gas Production and Petroleum Products – Liquid natural gas (LNG) – Plastics manufacturing – Project cargo – Population growth . Last mile connectivity . Heavy haul routes

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 11

Waterways Challenges

. Increasing demand may require additional investments – Maintenance – Equipment . Increasing imbalances in trade flows

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 12

6 AIR CARGO

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Air Cargo Overview

. One of the largest state airport systems in the U.S. – nearly 400 public use airports – 24 commercial service airports – 6 of the top 50 cargo airports in the US (landed weight 2015) . Private investment supports maintenance of airport assets – improvements to cargo facilities . Cargo airports generally in metropolitan areas served by the THFN . Key issues – Landside access and last mile connectivity – Congestion around urban areas

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 14

7 Air Cargo - Assets

. 24 commercial service airports . 6 of the top 50 cargo airports in U.S. in 2015 based on landed weigh . Laredo ranks 52

2013 2015 Rank ID Airport National National Change Rank Rank 2013 ‐ 2015

DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International 10 9 1

IAH George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 17 17 0

SAT San Antonio International 29 33 ‐4

AFW Fort Worth Alliance 36 32 4

ELP El Paso International 43 41 2

AUS Austin‐Bergstrom International 47 44 3

LRD Laredo International 56 52 4

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 15

Trends in Air Cargo Volumes

1,800 25%

1,600 20%

1,400 15% 1,200

1,000 10%

800 5%

Landed Weight (Tons) Weight Landed 600

0% Change 2012-2015 Percent 400

-5% 200

- -10% DFW IAH SAT AFW ELP AUS LRD

2012 2013 2014 2015

16

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 24

8 PIPELINES

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Transportation Volumes by Pipeline Commodity in Texas

Commodity Volume Year

Natural Gas 7,071,203 TCF (trillion cubic feet) 2015

Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) 564,714 MB (thousand barrels) 2016

Crude Oil 5.4 MMB (million barrels) 2016

Source: U.S. EIA state production data Note: Assumes produced commodities make it into the pipeline system at some point in the gathering, transmission, and distribution

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 18

9 Active Pipeline Map

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 19

Active Crude Oil Pipelines in Texas

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 20

10 Refined Petroleum Pipelines in Texas

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 21

Pipeline Challenges

. Capacity constraints in some areas . Growing demand in non-traditional markets . Aging infrastructure . Terminal access in congested urban areas . Opposition to new pipelines

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 22

11 TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN UPDATE Preliminary Projects

May 11, 2017 Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Identifying Projects for the Update

. Progress to date – Highways- Compiling latest UTP projects on the adopted Texas Highway Freight Network (THFN) – Non-highway modes- Updated projects from existing plans to account for those that have been implemented . In process – Comparing UTP projects against needs and projects identified in adopted TFMP – Obtaining latest data and stakeholder input to update needs assessment – Analyzing how latest projects in UTP will impact freight movements . Next steps – TxFAC validation on projects in adopted TFMP and new projects in the UTP – TxFAC input on additional strategic and longer term freight projects – Conduct needs assessment based on updated THFN and data – Revise project lists and recommendations

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

1 What is Needed from the TxFAC?

. Review projects in adopted Freight Plan – Are they still valid? – Are there missing projects? . Discuss potential projects from the latest UTP and other updated modal plans and studies . Seek input on strategic and longer term freight projects

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 3

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

2 Adopted Freight Plan - Highway Projects

Identified projects based on Freight Plan goals

•Capacity expansion Mobility and • Lane widening or additions Connectivity •New freeway or highway construction

•Areas where truck-related accidents are most Safety frequent

•Bridges in poor condition Freight Asset Utilization •Bridges with less than 18’6” vertical clearance and Management •Roadway rehabilitation

•Improved signalization Technology •Wireless ITS and traffic management systems •Dynamic message signage

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Adopted Freight Plan - Highway Projects

Total Est # ($B) Total 878 $36.6

Let (1/2017)* Est # ($B)

Let Projects Total 121 $1.9

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 6

3 Adopted Freight Plan – Highway Projects

Let #Est ($ M)

Mobility/ 92 $1,549.0 Connectivity

Safety 5 $2.5

Asset Utilization and 25 $295.8 Management Technology 2 $3.0

Total* 124 --

Let Projects

* Some projects addressed multiple needs Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 7

Freight Plan Update - Highway Projects

Estimate Status # ($B) Finalizing for Construction 562 $4.4 Under Development 272 $8.2 Long Term Planning 40 $3.5

Total to be Developed 874 $16.1

Construction Scheduled 595 $4.7 Overall Total 1469 $20.8

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 8

4 Freight Plan Update - Highway Projects

#Estimate ($M)

Mobility/ 351 $ 14,314 Connectivity

Safety 275 $ 237

Asset Utilization and 127 $ 949 Management

Bridge 119 $ 579

Technology 2 $ 10

Total 874 $ 16,090

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 9

AIR CARGO HIGHWAY ACCESS PROJECTS

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

5 Adopted Freight Plan – Air Cargo Highway Access Projects

Proximity to •Highway projects in 5 mile radius airports

•Roadway widening Highway •Interchange improvements projects •ITS installation

•Major cargo airports Airport •Capture any ongoing or planned projects survey •Specific needs

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Adopted Plan - Air Cargo Highway Access Projects

Projects Additional Needs Airport # $1,000 $ 2,794 Million DFW 8 1,424,764

IAH 2 8,300

SAT 3 481,756

AFW 2 10,250

ELP 12 324,196

AUS 5 411,527 Widen US 183 bridge and install left turn lane

LRD 11 130,683 Loop 20/International Boulevard interchange

12

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 94

6 RAIL PROJECTS

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Key Rail Needs from Adopted TFMP

Example Projects to Address Needs •Doubletracking System capacity and •Line reconstruction operations •Mainline capacity

•New facilities Intermodal and rural •Rehabilitations of shortlines connectivity •Line upgrades (weights and clearance)

•New rail bridges NAFTA and Border •Capacity enhancements Ports of Entry

•Grade crossing elimination Safety/security •Grade crossing technology

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

7 Rail Projects from Adopted TFMP

Estimated Location Project Name Project Description Cost Source TxDOT Legislative Neches River Rail Construction of a second bridge for a rail Beaumont $240,000 Appropriations Crossing crossing of the Neches River at Beaumont: Request Beaumont Rail Expand rail capacity through the Beaumont, Beaumont TBD KCS Capacity Texas rail corridor Dobbin Wye New Wye Connection at Dobbin, TX (Houston, Dobbin TBD BNSF Connection Conroe Subdivisions) Rehabilitation of the South Orient rail line TxDOT Legislative Fort Stockton South Orient Rail Line between Fort Stockton and Alpine to open the $50,000 Appropriations to Alpine Rehab (Alpine) interchange with UP at Alpine. Request

Greenville to Northeast Texas Rural Rehabilitation of the Northeast Texas Rural Rail TxDOT Legislative Mount Rail Transportation Transportation District (NETEX) rail line from $32,000 Appropriations Pleasant District Rail Line Rehab Greenville to Mount Pleasant (66 miles Request

Greenville to Reconstruction of Reconstruction of an abandoned rail corridor TxDOT Legislative $25,000 Wylie NETEX Rail Line owned by the NETEX rail line from Greenville to Appropriations Wylie (23.2 miles). Request Houston Rail Grade TxDOT Legislative Construction of five grade separations and the Houston Separation (West Belt $57,600 Appropriations closure of five additional crossings. Subdivision) Request

Double Track Rail Double Track Sinco Junction to Harrisburg Houston (Sinco to Harrisburg TBD UP Junction Junction)

Double Track TRE - Tower 55 to Hurst and Double Track Rail on Hurst additional lines from Carrolton to Irving and TBD BNSF TRE Irving to Dallas.

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 15

Rail Projects from Adopted TFMP

Double Track Rail on Double Track TRE - Tower 55 to Hurst and additional Hurst TBD BNSF TRE lines from Carrolton to Irving and Irving to Dallas.

Paisano Rehabilitation of the South Orient rail line between TxDOT Legislative South Orient Rail Junction and Paisano Junction and Presidio to open the $46,000 Appropriations Line Rehab Presidio international gateway at competitive speeds. Request

Second Main Line Right-of-way and design costs for a second main TxDOT Legislative Rosenberg to ROW and Design between Rosenberg and Arcola on BNSF’s Galveston $18,400 Appropriations Arcola (Galveston Subdivision. Request Subdivision) South Orient Rail Projects: TxDOT and Texas Pacifico (TXPF) have executed a contract amendment that TxDOT Legislative South Orient Rail Statewide requires TXPF to pay a $50 carload fee to reimburse $2,000 Appropriations Projects Texas for any State funds expended on rehabilitation Request of the line.

Sulphur South Orient Rail TxDOT Legislative Rehabilitation of the South Orient rail line between Junction to Line Rehab (Fort $15,000 Appropriations Sulphur Junction and Fort Stockton (13.6 miles). Fort Stockton Stockton) Request

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 16

8 Rail Border Crossing Projects

. Laredo Bridge Double Track - Construction of a second bridge or double track bridge at Laredo to improve rail traffic flows to/from Mexico, Laredo . Perform various upgrades to 31 bridges on the BNSF El Paso Subdivision within the next 10–15 years, El Paso County . Eagle Pass Rail Improvements - Double-tracking segments between BNSF and UP sidings and between UP siding and tracks at Eagle Pass in the vicinity of the bridge to Piedras Negras, an intermodal facility with lay-down pad for container movements, and improvements to assist U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in conducting border security measures . Proposed rail link north of Laredo

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 17

PORTS AND WATERWAYS PROJECTS

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

9 Key Ports and Waterways Needs from Adopted TFMP

Example Projects to Address Needs •Deepening, widening and dredging System capacity and •Terminal construction/enhancements operations •Improved access and relief routes

•New on-dock and near-dock facilities Intermodal and rural • Improved access routes connectivity •At-grade crossing elimination

•Improved rail and road access between ports NAFTA and Border and border regions Ports of Entry • Expanded warehouse and distribution networks

•Grade crossing elimination Safety/security •Cargo screening technology

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017

Summary of Projects by Port

Count of Project Port Description Beaumont 32 Brownsville 10 Calhoun 5 Corpus Christi 7 Freeport 11 Galveston 5 Houston 17 Port Arthur 11 Victoria 7 Grand Total 105

Port Project Total Costs - $2,953,823

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 102

10 GIWW Projects

2014 GIWW Master Brazos River Floodgates and Colorado River Locks Plan

2014 GIWW Master Placement of revetments along placement areas Plan

New fleeting areas: Provide funding assistance for the creation of new 2014 GIWW Master fleeting areas that would accommodate all available barge traffic Plan

2014 GIWW Master Replacement of FM 457 swing bridge (Caney Creek Bridge) Plan

2014 GIWW Master Real estate options for PA86 placement area in Brazoria County Plan

The Maritime Division is working on an application to MARAD to designate 2014 GIWW Master the Texas portion of the GIWW as the M-69 Plan

Dredging and widening navigational channel projects identified in the Water TxDOT Legislative Resources Reform and Development Act, the annual Energy and Water Appropriations Request Appropriations Act or other legislation under US Army Corps of Engineers (2015-2016) authorized projects (conjunction with federal and local partner funding)

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 21

Next Steps

. Finalize TMFN designation and compare against existing project lists and UTP . Develop/ Refine Strategic Projects . Run project against freight plan goals . FAC to review project lists . Combine input to finalize project list . Becomes basis for Freight Investment Plan

Freight Advisory Committee May 11, 2017 22

11

1 TEXAS SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

2 • Defined as a Class 3 railroad, annual operating revenue of less than $37.4M • Most were once branch lines of larger railroads, abandoned or spun off • Require significant capital investment to rebuild and maintain • Entrepreneurial in truest sense, small businesses focused on customer service and cost control • First and last mile of the freight journey ‐ interface between customers and Class 1 railroads • Provide labor intensive services that are unprofitable for large railroads

What is a Short Line Freight Railroad?

• More than 600 short line railroads • Employing over 18,300 people • Operating 50,000 miles of track in 49 states ‐ 38% of rail network • Serving over 12,000 shippers, that employ over 1,000,000 people • Paying nearly $1B in taxes annually, average of 20% of revenue • Infrastructure built and maintained with private funds • Vital role linking rural America to the Class 1 rail network

SHORT LINE FREIGHT RAIL INDUSTRY in United States

*Source 2014 ASLRRA Facts & Figures

3 • 43 short line railroads • 20% of rail network

• Employ almost 1,500 people (*TxDot Study 2016)

• Handle over 387,000 carloads of freight annually (*ASLRRA)

• Take 1,024,000 trucks off the road (*ASLRRA)

• Savings of an estimated $45M in pavement damage (*ASLRRA)

• Estimated $354M in Economic Output Impact (*TxDot Study 2016) Texas Short Line Freight Railroad Facts

• Make substantial Capital Investments in transportation infrastructure • Drive Economic Development ‐ new Jobs and Tax base Growth • Pay significant Property and Franchise Taxes • Connect Rural Texas to National Rail Network • Relieve Highway Congestion • Reduce Taxpayer Burden ‐ Protect public road infrastructure –heavy truck road and damage • Provide Environmental Benefits – reduced emissions Short Line Freight Railroads – Good for Texas!

4 “Real benefits can be achieved by partnering with the private sector on rail projects. The sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) benefits of rail when compared to highway warrant a more prominent and established role for rail transportation in the state’s overall transportation policy.” 2013 TxDot Study “Benefits of Public Investment in Freight Rail Infrastructure”

2013 TxDot Study

• 33 States, outside of Texas, have programs to fund rail infrastructure projects. • Texas Railroad Relocation and Improvement Fund (2005) ‐ has never been funded.

2013 TxDot Study

5 “As Texas short lines play a significant role in the local community and the state economy, there is a necessity to establish assistance programs for short lines to help maintain and improve the existing infrastructure.” TxDot Study 2016: “Transportation and Economic Impact of Texas Short Line Railroads”

2016 TxDot Study

• Capital Investment Tax Credit • State Loan and Grant Options • State Support for Federal Loan and Grant Applications • Utilize Texas Railroad Relocation and Improvement Fund (2005) • Engaged, Empowered TxDot Rail Division or Multi‐modal Freight Division that Includes Rail • Economic Development Commission Connection with Short Lines

How To Encourage Growth of Texas Short Lines

6 • Bridge and Track Upgrades – 286k • New Rail Sidings and Spurs • Crossing and Signal Projects • Improved Interchange Between Carriers • Catastrophic Event Recovery

Specific Types of Projects

• Highway Rail Crossing Maintenance and Replacement • Highway Crossing Consolidation and Closings

State Support on Highway Issues

7 TEXAS SHORTLINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

• 115 Railroads operating 17,000 miles of track in North America • 7,200 employees • 2,800 Customers served • 3 million carloads moved annually • Safety always priority Genesee & Wyoming

8 Legacy Infrastructure Inherited

States with Rail‐Eligible Programs

9 States with Rail‐Specific Programs

• Lottery‐backed bond initiative to invest in air, rail, marine, transit, and bike/ped projects. – Created to ensure that Oregon’s transportation system is strong, diverse, and efficient. • Grants cover up to 70% project cost – Minimum 30% match • Five rounds of Connect Oregon funding – $382 million available funding – $915 million requested • Extensive review Process ConnectOregon

10 ConnectOregon

ConnectOregon

11 • Solves a safety and transportation problem • Beneficial to all parties involved • Broad mix of funding – ConnectOREGON Grant (rail improvements) • Funds up to 80% of project cost – Portland & Western Railroad (rail improvements) • Required match for program eligibility – Oregon DOT Rail Division (grade crossing improvements) – Oregon Regional Solutions (roadway improvements) – City of Rainier, Oregon (utilities, City enhancements) ConnectOregon

• Grant program open to both public and private entities – Larger publically owned railroads in Washington • $7.04 million appropriated for 2017‐2019 – No restriction on size of award • “This program is directed toward larger projects where it is difficult to gain a contribution and where the rail location or the project is of strategic importance to the local community and the state.” • Grants are administered by WSDOT – Require applicants to provide a business plan and a cost benefit analysis to ensure projects generate public benefits • Grants are scored by WSDOT – WS DoC, FMSIB, and WPPA also participate in scoring – Recommended list is sent and approved by the legislature

WSDOT Freight Rail Assistance Program

12 WSDOT Freight Rail Assistance Program

WSDOT Freight Rail Assistance Program

13 • Replaces three crossings allowing for easier access to the Olympic Gateway shopping center • Utilization of Washington Department of Transportation’s Freight Rail Assistance Program – 70% funded by the grant program – 30% private match “This area of this project is a major nexus of transportation in Grays Harbor County. The shopping center is a significant retail destination in our region. This segment of US 12 has an average traffic volume of almost seven million vehicles. Traffic leaving US 12 and entering the shopping center must cross one of seven at‐grade crossings, three of which are in desperate need of repair or replacement. US 12 is designated a freight route and provides the most significant road access from the east to Aberdeen and the Port of Grays Harbor. The PS&P rail line is the only route serving the Port of Grays Harbor identified as a Global Gateway in the Washington State Freight Mobility Plan, and the cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam.” WSDOT Freight Rail Assistance Program

• Participates in the cost to rebuild highway‐railroad crossings • Allocation of funds from multiple sources • Involvement from the railroad, roadway jurisdiction, Iowa DOT, Iowa Transportation Commission

Iowa’s Highway‐Railroad Grade Crossing Surface Repair Program

14 • Began in 2006 • 50% credit allowed against the State income tax capped at $2,000* per track mile • Qualified railroad reconstruction/maintenance • Oklahoma Department of Transportation involvement

Oklahoma State Tax Credit

• HB 3566 introduced in 2017 by Rep. Trent Ashby • 50% credit allowed against the State Franchise tax capped at $3,500 per track mile • Four Joint Authors: Reps. Shine, Phillips, Geren, Price • Three coauthors: Reps. Button, Faircloth, Koop • Qualified railroad reconstruction/maintenance • TXDOT involvement

Texas State Tax Credit?

15 Questions?

16