Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

76 7.1 Introduction The primary focus of this research project has been to develop a method (or tool) that public- and private-sector decision makers can use to identify, categorize, and evaluate quickly implementable, low-cost capital, operational, and pub- lic policy actions that can enhance freight mobility by address- ing persistent system constraints. The tool is applied to develop a catalog of low-cost actions or classes of actions that can be quickly implemented to address the nation’s freight-system mobility constraints, especially along corridors or at locations that impact freight mobility at a national level. The approach in developing the catalog of strategies recog- nizes the inherent conflict or disconnect between the criteria of quickly implementable low-cost improvements and large cap- ital investments required to expand the capacity of the freight transportation system, especially for projects of national signif- icance. In other words, addressing freight mobility constraints at locations that may impact freight mobility at national levels would require large capital investments that encompass low-cost physical improvements. Low-cost improvements are effective in eliminating and/or reducing the congestion at these locations. With this recognition, the theme in developing the catalog of actions is to identify proven low-cost improve- ments that have the potential to enhance freight mobility to noticeable extents even though such actions may not by them- selves necessarily remove the constraint entirely. Depending on the mode of freight transportation, the low- cost improvements could be more operations, regulatory, pol- icy, or technology oriented and less physical. While low-cost improvements for the highway mode may include all types of actions (i.e., physical, operational, and regulatory), those for rail and ports may not include physical actions. For physical low-cost improvements, site and traffic characteristics and other factors contributing to a constraint at a given location may not necessarily be identical to other locations. Therefore, improvement strategies presented in the catalog are generic; however, implementation at a particular location would require consideration of specific site characteristics and operational practices. Similarly, given the uniqueness of each deepwater port, an effective action at one port may not necessarily be effective at another port. 7.2 Approach to Developing Catalog of Strategies In discussing options to address the capacity issues on the freight transportation system, greater understanding is needed of what drives private- and public-sector decision makers to want change, to be willing to pay for it, and to work together to maximize the return on investment in terms of meeting their goals, both quantitative and qualitative. Given the disparities of how each sector defines and measures success, it is impor- tant to consider shared, cooperative project implementation to reconcile any conflicts between these values (i.e., public versus private, national versus local, and high-cost versus low-cost improvements), focusing on projects that use relatively low- cost operational strategies or technology innovations to address capacity and mobility constraints. Recognizing that the characteristics of each mode in terms of the level of public- and private-sector involvement and part- nership in decisions regarding funding improvement projects determine the approaches to addressing freight mobility, dif- ferent approaches are used in developing the catalog of strate- gies. The catalog of improvements are developed from case studies that represent projects that have been implemented in different parts of the country and to address a variety of freight mobility constraints. The improvements target locations or corridors where major constraints within each modal freight transportation network occur. Addressing these constraints is expected to improve freight mobility significantly at a national level. The following subsections discuss the locations of major freight mobility constraints and present a catalog of low-cost improvements to address specific constraints for each mode. C H A P T E R 7 Catalog of Improvements

77 7.2.1 Highways Locations of nationally recognized bottlenecks in the high- way freight transportation system present opportunities for implementing low-cost improvements to help alleviate the constraints. The freight bottlenecks study (12) identified the top 30 freight highway bottlenecks to be poorly functioning interchanges on the NHS. These bottlenecks were identified based on analysis of the performance in terms of volume/ capacity ratios and delay derived from freight flow data. The study has shown that more than 70 percent of bottlenecks occur on the interstate highway system and 42 percent were interchange related. These top 30 bottlenecks occur at urban interchanges in metropolitan areas with high population den- sities and major freight activity centers. The study also con- cluded that low-cost improvements can result in significant improvements in traffic flow. Analysis of freight performance measurement data (88) re-ordered the top 30 freight bottle- necks. This latter analysis was based on truck traffic volume and reductions in truck speed below the posted speed limits through these interchanges. Table 30 shows the locations of the top 30 bottlenecks and their traffic and other performance CSI ranking (2002) ATRI ranking (2009) Location State Freight Congestion value AADT (2007) V/C (2002) AADT (2002) Truck % (2002) 5 1 I-80 @ I-94 Interchange IL 2,722,629 144,602 1.104 128,049 24.0% 19 2 I-95 @ SR-4 Interchange DE 1,435,661 93,979 0.923 88,425 15.5% 9 3 I-90 @ I-94 Interchange IL 921,688 175,548 1.151 163,805 6.0% 3 4 I-285 @ I-85 Interchange (“Spaghetti Junction”) GA 899,899 286,300 1.850 254,600 16.0% 13 5 I-95 @SR-9A (Western Hwy) NY 656,190 98,834 1.187 79,755 5.0% 10 6 I-40 @ I-65 Interchange (east) TN 446,933 192,073 1.925 114,280 17.1% 6 7 SR-60 @ SR-57 Interchange CA 426,569 344,294 1.173 216,000 12.0% 24 8 I-10 @ I-15 Interchange CA 382,200 289,504 1.190 258,000 12.0% 21 9 I-45 @ US 59 Interchange TX 318,853 265,768 2.065 212,241 7.0% 26 10 I-45 @ I-610 Interchange TX 259,704 301,828 2.396 260,770 8.1% 4 11 I-20 @ I-75/I-85 Interchange GA 234,258 452,556 1.500 199,000 16.1% 2 12 I-17 (Black Canyon Fwy): I-10 Interchange (the Stack) AZ 225,892 309,032 0.985 255,371 9.1% 25 13 I-95/I-495 MD 183,772 260,904 1.912 185,125 7.1% 1 14 I-710 @I-105 Interchange CA 156,987 280,731 1.393 224,000 9.0% 14 15 I-71 @ I-70 Interchange OH 144,772 188,724 1.648 107,722 17.0% 7 16 I-80 @ I-580/I-880 in Oakland CA 144,009 292,437 2.241 177,763 9.0% 12 17 I-75 @ I-85 Interchange GA 138,824 353,005 1.018 295,000 16.0% 15 18 I-880 @ I-238 CA 129,421 339,634 1.206 271,000 10.8% 18 19 I-695/I-70 and I-95 exit 11 MD 119,629 217,885 1.983 165,050 7.0% 20 20 I-10 @ I-110/US 54 Interchange TX 115,516 232,273 1.379 200,677 7.8% 30 21 I-25 @ I-76 Interchange CO 107,116 246,429 1.198 237,839 9.0% 27 22 I-10 @ I-410 Loop North Interchange TX 93,066 193,670 1.747 117,179 7.8% 17 23 I-285 @ I-75 Interchange GA 58,784 211,107 2.108 153,600 16.1% 11 24 I-290 @ I-355 Interchange IL 56,591 239,337 1.782 213,906 9.0% 23 25 I-10 @ SR-51/SR-202 Interchange (Mini-Stack) AZ 51,486 339,804 1.955 152,880 7.0% 28 26 I-110 @ I-105 Interchange CA 40,647 365,953 1.484 230,000 6.0% 16 27 SR-91 @ SR-55 Interchange CA 36,746 315,719 1.103 298,000 8.1% 29 28 I-95 @ SR-595 Interchange FL 28,291 315,890 1.395 288,000 9.0% 8 29 I-405 (San Diego Fwy) @ I-605 Interchange CA 16,732 472,480 1.376 377,000 6.0% 22 30 SR-134 @ SR-2 Interchange CA 3,200 235,433 1.083 205,000 6.2% Note: Freight Congestion value = number of trucks multiplied by difference between average and speed limits Table 30. Performance characteristics of top 30 highway bottlenecks (58, 88, 89).

characteristics (also shown in Figure 3). The traffic data and congestion measures (indicated by volume/capacity ratios) for these locations were derived from FAF2 traffic analysis data (58). The values shown in Table 30 represent maximum v/c ratios and corresponding AADT and percentage of trucks in the fleet for the critical leg of each interchange. Table 30 also shows the AADT for 2007 derived from the FAF provisional estimates. The challenge in developing a catalog of low-cost physical improvements is the lack of specific site (geometric) data at these locations. However, as noted previously, the func- tional highway classes (i.e., urban interstates) where these top 30 bottlenecks and the locations (i.e., interchanges or ramps) where the constraints typically occur are known. Based on the knowledge of the location of the constraints, the methodology was applied to identify the range of constraints and then identify the applicable low-cost improvements for each constraint. Table 31 presents the catalog of improvements to address freight mobility constraints encountered on the highway sys- tem. For each constraint, a single improvement or a combina- tion of improvements can be implemented depending on the severity of the constraint or the physical conditions on site or both. Note that these improvements are generic in the sense that they are not designed to any specific site condition or loca- tion. This catalog is intended to serve as a guide and does not include any design details or specifications for implementation. 7.2.2 Railroads Within the context of improving freight movement by rail, the most urgent policy need does not appear to be investing in expensive projects like double-tracking mainline rail freight corridors, expediting port access, and building new port ter- minal capacity, but rather smart investments to address per- sistent operational and site-specific weaknesses in the freight transportation network. In developing a catalog of low-cost improvements, the first step is to identify locations or corri- dors within the rail freight transportation system where major bottlenecks occur whereby alleviating congestion at these locations would improve rail freight movement at the national levels. For example, in 2007, the Alameda Corridor East and 78 Constraint Constraint Description Improvements Ph ys ic al C on st ra in ts Weaving Where traffic must merge across one or more lanes to access entry or exit ramps. Occurs at closely spaced interchanges/ short acceleration lanes • Add auxiliary lane to connect an on-ramp and off-ramp • Extend/lengthen the existing turning lane • Add a dedicated turning lane at intersection • Extend/lengthen the existing lane • Redirect traffic i.e., replace exit ramp with entrance ramp from collector distributor to mainline lanes. • Restriping i.e., re-mark pavement lanes to add more narrow lanes Lane Drop Where one or more traffic lanes are lost—typically at bridge crossings. Occurs on short ramps on interchanges • Add auxiliary lane to connect an on-ramp and off-ramp • Extend/lengthen the ramp Inadequate Interchange/Ramp Capacity Inability of freeway-to-freeway interchanges and ramps to handle high traffic volume merging and weaving. Occurs on short ramps, single-lane ramps, short deceleration lanes • Extend/lengthen the ramp length • Extend/lengthen the acceleration and deceleration lanes • Add a dedicated turning lane at intersection • Ramp metering—install traffic signals at freeway on-ramps to control the rate of vehicles entering the freeway • Realign/improve interchange layout and add ramps • Widen lane width on ramp • Install new traffic signal • Add auxiliary lane to connect an on-ramp and off-ramp • Reduce speed limit on ramp • Install warning/advisory/navigational signs on ramps • Improve existing road signs to reduce confusion or to warn the traffic • Repaint pavement marking with fluorescent paint to separate traffic movement • Restriping i.e., re-mark pavement lanes to add more narrow lanes Steep Grade Where steep uphill grade causes trucks to slow down causing delays to other traffic • Add a passing lane on steep grades Steep Grade with Ramp Meter Ramp metering on steep grades to regulate access to urban freeways resulting in queues and delays caused by slow-moving trucks. • Remove ramp meter, i.e., remove traffic signal on ramp with steep grades • Relocate ramp meter, i.e., relocate traffic signal on ramp to improve effectiveness • Alter ramp metering operation, i.e., reprogram traffic signal operation on ramp to provide exclusive lanes to bypass queue at ramp meter • Modify median bull noses to facilitate turning movements Table 31. Catalog of low-cost improvements for highway system constraints.

79 Constraint Constraint Description Improvements Ph ys ic al C on st ra in ts Inadequate Turning Radii Turning radius at edge intersections too tight to permit easy entry and exit by turning vehicles without encroaching on other lanes. Intersections – urban a rterials; intermodal connectors • Widen to improve turning radius • Add a dedicated turning lane at intersection • Modify median bull noses to facilitate turning movements • Widen and extend existing lane width • Widen to improve turning radius • Add a dedicated turning lane at intersection • Modify median bull noses to facilitate turning movements • Widen and extend existing lane width Inadequate Mainline Capacity T raffic demand exceeds mainline capacity due to insufficient number of lanes to handle traffic volume. Urban Interstates/ urban principal arterials. • Install warning/advisory/navigational signs • Reduce speed limit on ramp • Provide alternative directions for alternative routes , e.g., use secondary roads • Improve existing road signs to reduce confusion or to warn the traffic • Repaint pavement marking with fluorescent paint to separate traffic movement • Restriping i.e., re - mark pavement lanes to add more narrow lanes • Use beacons, advisory signs , etc . to implement revisions in merging and diverging areas • Deploy technology to allow in - cab communication Inadequate Intersection Capacity T raffic demand exceeds intersection capacity; may be caused by outdated traffic signals, poor signal timing , or no dedicated turn lanes • Add a dedicated turning lane at intersection • Extend/lengthen the existing turning lane • Widen the lane width • Modify traffic signal phasing taking traffic volume in account • Install traffic signal at intersection • Upgrade existing traffic signal • Widen pavement shoulder • Extend existing turning lanes to accommodate traffic • Improve existing road signs to reduce confusion or to warn the traffic • Improve intersection layout to meet traffic demand and accommodate trucks • Add auxiliary lane to connect an on - ramp and off - ramp Insufficient Parking for Trucks Inadequate parking facilities along highways and restriction s in central business districts • Provide basic parking for trucks even if without amenities especially closer to urban areas • Widen and pave shoulders to allow trucks to park – especially close to urban areas O pe ra tio na l C on st ra in ts Steep Grade with Ramp Meter Ramp metering on steep grades to regulate access to urban freeways resulting in queues and delays caused by slow-moving trucks • Remove ramp meter, i.e., remove traffic signal on ramp with steep grades • Relocate ramp meter, i.e., relocate traffic signal on ramp to improve effectiveness • Alter ramp metering operation, i.e., reprogram traffic signal operation on ramp to provide exclusive lanes to bypass queue at ramp meter Poor Road Signage/ Lack o f Warning Signs Poor road signage, i.e., graphics created to display information to highway users in order to warn or inform • Improve existing road/navigational signs to reduce confusion or to warn the traffic • Provide warning/advisory and/or navigational signs Poor Traffic System Management Lack of, or poor , traffic control system including a condition where signal timing does not meet traffic requirements • Upgrade existing traffic signal to accommodate traffic demand • Install new traffic signal system • Modify signal phasing taking traffic volume in to account • Synchronize closely placed traffic signals for traffic to receive right of way simultaneously during one or more intervals Lack of Traveler Information Lack of or limited traveler information provided to trucks • Improve existing or provide traveler information • Use variable message si g n s to provide traveler information R eg ul at or y C on st ra in ts Truck Restrictions in Central Business District Where regulatory controls restrict access to central business district during certain times of the day or restrict parking in certain sections • Develop and implement loading comprehensive zone plan that co nsiders truck delivery and pick up • Implement metered freight loading zones in designated areas • In high freight activity locations, add loading zone “hot spots” • Designate locations with on - street parking away from loading zones • Discourage peak - hour loading/unloading through increased parking violation fines during peak periods • Increase enforcement activities for automobiles parking in docking areas Table 31. (Continued).

80 the double-tracking of Union Pacific’s Sunset Route from El Paso to Colton, California, were recognized as projects of national significance by virtue of their location within the rail network and their contribution to rail freight movement (90). Also, the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) program assembles a number of proj- ects of importance to multiple railroads, Metra, and Amtrak in the Chicago area with the stated goals of not only reducing rail and motorist congestion, but also improving passenger rail service, enhancing public safety, promoting economic development, creating jobs, and improving air quality (29). For railroads, deepwater ports, and inland waterways, the catalog of low-cost improvements that can be quickly imple- mentable is difficult to develop for the following main reasons: 1. In most cases, operators of freight services over railroad networks, at railroad-owned network links, at port termi- nals, and along inland waterway networks are private firms answering to their shareholders, not Federal or state agencies. They have different funding criteria and market incentives from those more familiar to state transportation departments. 2. Estimating the “national value” of freight mobility de- bottlenecking is terra incognita for private network investors and operators. Benefit calculations for these firms would feature private returns, not social benefits or external economies and diseconomies. 3. Railways, ports, and inland waterways freight projects, especially those thought to exhibit “national value,” are likely to be “high cost, multi-year” initiatives, rather than activities that are “low cost, quickly implementable” in scope. A recent study (45) on the rail freight capacity identified the major rail bottlenecks within the rail network. Figure 29 shows the locations of some of the major bottlenecks and corridors. Table 32 shows the characteristics of some improvement pro- grams and projects that are either under way or planned for these bottlenecks. These programs are joint public and private stakeholder cooperative initiatives with the primary objectives of reducing congestion and delays on rail and highways, improving efficiency in freight and passenger mobility, enhanc- ing safety, and reducing air emissions. Information gathered through literature reviews, interviews, and survey of stakeholders indicate that some of the most severe and persistent rail freight mobility constraints include the following: • Outdated communication and signaling systems including signaling restrictions • Switching inefficiency including conflicts for mixed-speed operation on single or dual tracks • Inadequate sidings to accommodate train lengths • Inadequate capacity of yards and port terminals. Figure 29. Major chokepoints in rail freight network (45).

81 Table 32. Characteristics of some improvement programs in freight rail system. Corridor/ Bottleneck Chokepoint Characteristics Program Characteristics Chicago (29) • 6 Class I railroads • 1,200 trains a day (500 freight, 700 passenger) • 37,500 rail cars processed daily • 3,200 daily truck trips • 74 marshalling yards CREATE Program • Federal/state/city/public-private partnership— $1.5 billion • 78 rail and highway capacity improvement projects, e.g., switches, interlocking, communication systems • Reduce delays to passenger and freight rail and enhance safety Los Angeles (90) • 2 Class I railroads and 4 short-line serving ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach • 6 major rail-truck intermodal transshipment yards • 3 inland railyards • Congestion at Los Angeles and Long Beach ports Alameda corridor • Public-private partnership—$2.4 billion • 20-mile freight expressway connecting inland railyards to ports • Results in 35 train movements per day average • 200 at-grade crossings eliminated • Reduce congestion at Los Angeles and Long Beach ports Seattle and Tacoma ports access (90, 91) • Intermodal capacity constraints at Port of Seattle, Washington • Short switching leads crossing busy streets at grade; short staging tracks • Terminal access problems to Port of Tacoma • Inadequate yard capacity • Seattle to Portland freight/passenger train conflicts FAST Corridor • Public-private coalition invested $568 million • Improve BNSF yard operations • Signal improvements • Add sidings to improve track capacity • Expand yard switching capacity • Carload consolidation facility Houston region (92) • Class I and regional railroads • 5 rail yards • Delays to road traffic at-grade crossings Freight route consolidation project • $3.3 billion improvements to reduce congestion especially at highway-railway crossings • Construction of several grade separations • Improvements in capacity and railroad connectivity NS Crescent Corridor (North Jersey to New Orleans) (93) • Significant highway congestion along route • 20-30% of AADT are trucks • 2,200 miles • Serving 46 ports • Long-haul intermodal services • Decreasing mainline capacity due to: - Limitations on handling 286,000 lb - Railcar availability - Dispatching problems • Multi State/Federal/Public-Private Partnership— $2 billion • Increase capacity of mainline and yards • Upgrade existing rail facilities—28 new and faster trains; new locomotive engines and rail cars; and new terminals • Reduce transit time by 24 hours between Hampton Roads, VA and Midwest • Divert 1 million (or 30%) trucks off highway every year Heartland Corridor (Port of Norfolk to Midwest) (93) • Currently, double-stack trains must take longer routes by way of Harrisburg, PA, or Knoxville, TN. • Delay to intermodal freight movement between the East Coast and the Midwest. NS Heartland Corridor • Multi-state/Federal/public-private partnership – (VA Port Authority, NS railroad, VA, WV, and OH)—$311 million • Increase intermodal freight capacity • Tunnel clearances for high-speed double-stack intermodal service from major Atlantic port to Ohio and Chicago intermodal hubs • 200-mile route reduction • Reduced transit time by 24 hours between East Coast and Midwest • Reduced shipping costs by about $500 per cargo container Mid-Atlantic Rail (94) • 10-20% of AADT on I-95 corridor are trucks • 250 million tons of freight in and out of region annually • 100 million tons of freight through region annually 27 trains per day North-South • Several choke points along corridor: inadequate connections between rail lines; congested grade crossings, stations and terminals; outmoded and inadequate information and communication systems I-95 Coalition (VA, MD, DE, PA and NJ) • Multi-state $6.2 billion target investment over 20 years • 71 infrastructure and information system improvements •

82 As noted in Table 32, rail capacity improvements gener- ally require large capital investments and such projects do not satisfy the criteria for low-cost improvements. However, elements of such large improvement programs are amenable to low-cost actions and have significant improvements in freight mobility. Furthermore, these actions can be imple- mented anywhere on the rail network to address freight mobility constraints, especially at major choke points. The second step therefore is to identify improvements that can be implemented alone or as part of major improvements. For example, the CREATE program assembles a number of projects that are designed to improve freight and passenger train as well as highway traffic movements. Projects under this program that could be classified as low-cost improve- ments are: • CREATE Project EW-4: BRC/NS Signal Upgrade—This project upgraded the Belt Railway Company of Chicago (BRC) and Norfolk Southern (NS) signal systems to power switches and signals along a segment of track. The result is increased train speed from 10 to 20 miles per hour; this segment now can handle twice the number of trains, an increase from 23 to 46 freight trains per day (29). • Deval Interlocking Replacement—The Deval interlocking machine in Des Plaines, Illinois, where several rail lines cross was replaced to improve operations by allowing the opera- tor to remotely view the entire interlocking area on a com- puter screen (29). • CREATE Project WA-5: Upgrade and Reconfigure Cor- with Interlocking and Remote CN Corwith Tower—This project installed a new signal bridge at Corwith Yard as part of CREATE improvements. The results are increased move- ments in and out of the yard and increased train lengths at the connection with NS and CSXT from 5,400 feet to 8,000 feet. Train speeds through the interlocking are increased, and the speed of interchanges between BNSF and its partner railroads is improved (29). The examples of low-cost improvements described for the CREATE projects and similar actions that have been proven to be effective in addressing rail freight mobility constraints and have the potential for nationwide applicability are included in the catalog presented in Table 33. These actions are derived from applying the methodology to different pos- sible scenarios focusing on those applicable to the top bottle- necks of the freight transportation system. The strategies are aligned to the constraints that they have been deployed to address. 7.2.3 Deepwater Ports and Inland Waterways The occurrence of a freight mobility constraint at a deep- water port terminal or an inland waterway system is deter- mined to a large extent by freight demand and capacity of the facility to handle existing demand. In identifying the deep- water ports that experience congestion and other freight mobil- ity constraints, the volume of freight passing through each port measured by the tonnage of freight handled is used to indicate the probable severity of mobility constraints. Table 34 shows the ranking of the top 25 ports in the United States for 2008 (95). Figure 30 shows the locations of these ports and tonnage of freight handled based on 2006 data (96). Constraint Constraint Description Improvements O pe ra tio na l C on st ra in ts Switching Conflicts/ Inefficient Switching Inefficient and inadequate switching and conflicts causing delays to trains • Upgrade or reconfigure interlocking — Interlocking is an arrangement of signal apparatus that prevents conflicting movements through an arrangement of tracks such as junctions or crossings. • Implement remote switching • Coordination of Class I ope rations with short - line/regional railroad operations to optimize joint operations and expedite switching traffic at interchanges. Outdated Communication and Signal System Old and outdated communication and signaling systems • Centralized Traffic Control System — use of electrical circuits in tracks to monitor locations of trains, allowing remote control of train movements from a central dispatching office. • Signal improvements – deploy advanced technologies to improve signaling system • Implement on - board and wayside defect detection and other advanced sensors • Implement trunked digital communications systems Table 33. Catalog of low-cost improvements for rail system.

83 Table 33. (Continued). Ph ys ic al C on st ra in ts Inadequate Track Capacity Physical characteristics of tracks to handle train traffic and causing delays to trains due to slow speeds and resulting increased trip time • Maximize infrastructure and equipment utilization through r oute sharing and directional flows – two competitive company’s routes coordinated and operated directionally Constraint Constraint Description Improvements • Advanced electronic inspection techniques to speed up inspection activities • Tie replacement to improve train speed • Track surfacing or putting the rails and track in a uniform plane (usually includes lining and gauging) is remedy to correct irregular track surface, with sags, low joints, bent rails, and short depressions and humps in the road bed. • Improve crossing warning systems and make current passive crossings active • Provide turnout or switch – i.e., mechanical installation enabling trains to be guided from one track to another at a railway junction. • Realign tracks to ensure smooth ride and increased speed • Provide crossover – i.e., a pair of switches that connects two parallel rail tracks, allowing a train on one track to cross over to the other • Curve Superelevation – correct or provide superelevation in curves to enhance safe speed • Maintenance of way (MOW) – optimize s cheduling of track work windows • MOW - seasonal “blitz” to coordinate multiple “out-of-face” projects with dedicated equipment and track forces • Relocate crew change points and re - schedule trains to improve safety, hours - of - service c ompliance, and customer service R eg ul at or y C on st ra in ts Limited Funding/ Fear of Regulation Lack of funding (public and private) to support and ensure efficient operation or expand capacity • Remove capping of returns/ provide incentives for investments • Investment tax credit • Encourage public - private partnerships • Provide access to public funding Ph ys ic al C on st ra in ts Inadequate Siding Capacity Lack of, or inadequate , passing siding to allow efficient train movement • Extend siding track to accommodate longer trains • Provide new siding track long enough to accommodate train lengths • Provide turnout to enable trains to be guided from one track to another at a railway junction • Realign tracks to ensure smooth ride and increased speed • Upgrade siding track to accommodate all trains using track • Provide connection tracks • Centralized Traffic Control System — use of electrical circuits in tracks to monitor locations of trains, allowing remote control of train movements from a central dispatching office. Inadequate Capacity of Yards and Port Terminals o r Inefficient Yard Operations Inadequate rail and port terminals as well as inefficiencies in terminal operations causing delays to trains and trucks • Expand carload terminals to add capacity • Expand intermodal terminals to add more capacity • Maximize infrastructure and equipment utilization through cooperative competitor arrangements for port terminal operations • Coordinate operations with feeder services , e.g., short - line or regional railroads, to optimize joint operations

84 Rank Port Name Domestic (thousand tons) Foreign (thousand tons) Total (thousand tons) % of National Total 1 Port of South Louisiana, LA 112,550 111,437 223,987 8.7% 2 Houston, TX 65,808 146,400 212,208 8.2% 3 New York, NY and NJ 62,379 91,101 153,480 5.9% 4 Long Beach, CA 12,934 67,271 80,205 3.1% 5 Corpus Christi, TX 21,431 55,355 76,786 3.0% 6 New Orleans, LA 36,530 36,481 73,011 2.8% 7 Beaumont, TX 22,688 46,796 69,484 2.7% 8 Huntington - Tristate 69,335 0 69,335 2.7% 9 Mobile, AL 29,524 38,111 67,636 2.6% 10 Port of Plaquemines, LA 35,813 27,931 63,744 2.5% 11 Los Angeles, CA 6,875 52,913 59,788 2.3% 12 Lake Charles, LA 22,012 31,766 53,778 2.1% 13 Texas City, TX 13,896 38,710 52,606 2.0% 14 Baton Rouge, LA 35,909 15,901 51,810 2.0% 15 Duluth - Superior, MN and WI 30,333 15,009 45,342 1.8% 16 Norfolk Harbor, VA 7,707 36,886 44,593 1.7% 17 Baltimore, MD 12,454 30,959 43,413 1.7% 18 Pittsburgh, PA 41,837 0 41,837 1.6% 19 Tampa, FL 26,296 13,380 39,676 1.5% 20 Paulsboro, NJ 12,482 23,870 36,352 1.4% 21 Valdez, AK 35,967 0 35,967 1.4% 22 Savannah, GA 1,839 33,555 35,394 1.4% 23 Pascagoula, MS 9,453 24,137 33,590 1.3% 24 Philadelphia, PA 11,960 20,323 32,283 1.3% 25 Port Arthur, TX 10,005 21,748 31,753 1.2% Table 34. Top 25 ports in terms of tonnage (2008) (95). As noted earlier, the following freight mobility constraints are identified as often encountered at the port terminals: • Inadequate terminal capacity • Physical barriers to rail operations • Empty container storage and movement • Inadequate local street and highway access from terminal • Inadequate waterway or channel depths • Inefficient terminal layout or terminal operations • Loss of communication on inland waterways in rural areas. These constraints occur “on the terminal” and “outside the gate.” Actions satisfying the criteria of low-cost and quickly implementable improvements and which might be of national significance would include operational/technology and regu- latory oriented actions. Freight mobility improvement projects and programs for deepwater ports and inland waterways gen- erally involve large capital investments that invariably are funded by private industry. It is also recognized that each port is unique where improvements at one location may not neces- sarily yield similar results at another port. Table 35 presents examples of programs that have been implemented to improve freight mobility and reduce con- gestion at some deepwater ports. These programs are prima- rily operational or technological actions designed to reduce congestion and delays to trucks and improve efficiency in container movements to and from the ports. Some programs are incentive-type programs designed to influence demand and consequently reduce the impacts on congestion. These strategies are of national value because, potentially, they can be implemented at any port in the country with similar results. Table 36 shows the list of low-cost improvements to address freight mobility constraints at deepwater ports and inland waterways. These actions are derived from the database of implemented projects that underlies the methodology.

85 Figure 30. Top 25 U.S. ports by tonnage—2006 (96). Program Summary of Program Where Implemented Incentive-based congestion pricing to encourage off-peak movements, e.g., PierPASS (38) The PierPASS OffPeak program is a private-sector initiative, incentive-based program to shift movement of international containers from peak weekday hours to evenings and weekends. Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California Incentive-based program to shift freight from trucks to rail, e.g., ExpressRail (97) ExpressRail—incentive program to encourage shippers to use rail rather than trucks for moving cargo through the Port. The program pays $25 per container shipped by rail to any ocean carrier that increases the number of containers it transports over its 2008 levels. Port Authority of New York/New Jersey Maximize infrastructure and equipment utilization through cooperative competitor arrangements, e.g., Chassis pool (98) Hampton Roads Container Pool II (HRCP-2), shipping lines provide chassis for the pool which are available for use by truck drivers who do not have to switch chassis to haul for different shipping lines. Norfolk, Virginia Maximize infrastructure utilization through cooperative competitor arrangements, e.g., Rail Yard Cargo Shift (99) Union Pacific Railroad is shifting its domestic intermodal container business from the Port of Seattle’s Argo Rail Yard to Tacoma, renting 10 acres of land across from the Port of Tacoma’s South Intermodal Yard. Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, Washington Table 35. Examples of programs with low-cost components.

86 Constraint Constraint Description Improvements O pe ra tio na l C on st ra in ts Inefficient terminal layout/gate operations Layout of terminal yard restricting inefficient operations; inefficiencies of terminal gate operations causing congestion and delays at the gates • Extend gate operating hours • Implement congestion pricing to discourage truck activity during peak periods (e.g., PierPASS) • Incentive-based program to shift freight from trucks to rail (e.g., ExpressRail) • Implement truck appointment system • Implement automated yard marshalling and inventory control • Utilize joint inspection facilities • Establish flexible labor shifts • Develop partnerships among stakeholders to accommodate uneven demand cycles • Utilize wireless communications to facilitate proper storage, ship operations, gate operations • Maximize infrastructure and equipment utilization through cooperative competitor arrangements (e.g., Chassis pool) • Deploy technologies to utilize high-speed gates/fast lane using paperless checking • Use multi-pick cranes Poor traffic control at terminal yard/gates-roadway connections Lack of, or poor, traffic management system on road access to port terminals, e.g., where signal timing does not meet traffic requirements • Implement traffic management system techniques at roadway connectors to ports (e.g., synchronizing traffic lights; improving signal phasing) • Upgrade existing traffic signal to accommodate traffic demand • Modify signal phasing taking traffic volume into account Inadequate rail intermodal connector capacity Inadequate capacity of rail connectors to handle train traffic • Use fast rail shuttles • Integrate maritime and rail movements • Off-dock container yards • Partnership to reduce passenger/freight rail use conflicts R eg ul at or y C on st ra in ts Labor laws and restrictive contractual limitations Restrictive labor laws and contractual agreements that adversely impact labor supply • Negotiate training terms and conditions to increase skills and trained labor supply TWIC requirements and lack of card- reading equipment Implementation of security and safety measures • Upgrade card readers • Use existing off-the-shelf software packages for card readers Ph ys ic al C on st ra in ts Inadequate capacity of terminal yard/gates Inadequate capacity of terminal yard to meet demand • Locate secured inspection areas outside major traffic areas • Terminal reconfiguration to add capacity • Maximize infrastructure utilization through cooperative competitor arrangements (e.g., Rail Yard Cargo Shift) Table 36. Catalog of low-cost improvements for deepwater ports.