I10 National Freight Corridor of the Future

1
I-10 National Freight Corridor of the Future

• Status and Action Items

2
What is the I-10 National Freight Corridor?

• 8 states coast to coast
• Freight Focused
• Focused on the network
• Wide geographic corridor (i.e., covers all states
  w/ US- Mexico border crossings, connecting
  roadways, nearby freight facilities, I-12 in
  Louisiana, etc.)
• Working together for 8 years

3
Corridor Overview
4
Florida Alabama
5
Alabama, Mississippi Louisiana
6
Louisiana Texas
7
Texas New Mexico
8
New Mexico Arizona
9
Arizona California
10
Why I-10

• I-10 has 12,000 lane miles, 65 of which are
  rural
• In 2000 398 lane miles did not provide sufficient
  capacity
• By 2025 that number is expected to quadruple
• By some accounts rail facilities along I-10 are
  already exceeding capacity

11
Why I-10

• Congestion along connectors to major ports
  border crossings present a significant challenge
  to freight and trade along I-10
• Total estimated economic impact of freight on
  I-10 is 1.38 trillion
• 339.4 billion of that is paid to 10.4 million
  workers

12
Level Of Service Over Time
13
Phase I Lessons Learned

• Freight transportation is central to US economy
  key to our competiveness in the global
  marketplace
• Continued investment in highways is key to US
  freight transportation infrastructure.
• Trend toward service economy will increase
  freight by double by 2025
• Worsened congestion and capacity impose increased
  costs on producers, shippers, carriers, consumers
  and worsen conditions for the traveling public

14
Phase I Lessons Learned

• I-10 is essential to efficiency of other freight
  system elements including ports, inland waterways
  and railroads
• Investments in high volume corridors, like I-10,
  must integrate intermodal and multimodal
  considerations to guarantee optimal distribution
  minimize the burden on highways
• Increasing capacity in these corridors is the
  best method for lowering highway cost
• Technologies such as ITS/CVO as well as
  innovation in automated truck separation enhance
  freight productivity

15
Phase I Lessons Learned

• Issues relating to freight demand transcend urban
  and state jurisdictions
• Implementation of solutions, both traditional as
  well as innovative technology wise, will require
  State/State and State/Federal partnerships, as
  well as partnerships with the private sector.
• Increased funding is essential to guaranteeing
  freight continues moving efficiently and
  productively
• Separating traffic streams offers opportunities
  for increasing funding.
• Increased funding requires collaboration between
  government and business.

16
Phase I Conclusions

• Alternatives to Meeting Demand
• Additional Lanes Most effective way to increase
  LOS. We should continue however, adding all
  needed capacity is not financially viable.
• Lanes required 2,121 Rural 2,943 Urban.
• Cost 3.9 billion Rural 17.4 billion Urban.
• ITS/CVO Coordinated corridor wide deployments
  offer returns of 3 for every 1
• Truck/Auto Separation Freight densities in some
  parts of the corridor may make this feasible.
  However, it is in its early stages of development
  and will require further innovation.

17
Phase I Conclusions

• Alternatives to Meeting Demand
• Truck Bypass Offer some improvement in capacity
  but arent feasible as stand-alone strategies.
• Multimodal Approaches Investments in
  non-highway modes such as rail waterways can
  succeed in diverting freight from the highway
  system it was found that the overall impact is
  minimal. Approximately 3 and 2 respectively

18
Work Accomplished To Date

• Phase I study completed in 2003
• COF submittal completed
• Included initial program and suggested funding
• Phase II study completed in early 2008
• Includes a corridor wide ITS Architecture
• Includes an initial program
• Includes an initial corridor policies manual
• Draft MOU (accomplished by TAC)

19
Outstanding Near Term Action Items

• First need an understanding of how the program
  is expected to be executed
• What organization will receive the funds?
• What kind of match is necessary?
• How does tolling and other financing fit into
  this program?
• What role does the private sector have if any?
• Can FHWA/USDOT assist with sharing funds across
  state lines?
• Finish and sign the MOU
• Agree to an initial policies and operations
  guidelines
• Find early winner projects to move forward
• Address any state specific concerns
• Hire a program manager
• Manage the flow of money
• Assist with project oversight and coordination?

20
Major Themes to Pursue

• Will keep the focus on the corridor
• Will keep the focus on freight
• Innovative financing
• More for capital projects than ITS projects
• Environmental streamlining
• More for capital projects than ITS projects
• Benchmarking to demonstrate progress
• Network approach so work with the Corridor not
  the individual states

21
Keys to Corridor Sustainability

• Stable of future funding?
• Program management support similar to I-95
• Some seed money for initial capital projects
• Roadmap for future state cooperation?
• Developing a solid agreement
• Corridor approach as opposed to working
  individually with states
• Do you have an outline of the Cooperative
  Development Agreement?

22
Keys Contacts

• Amadeo Saenz
• Executive Director, TDOT
• Steering Committee Chair
• asaenz_at_dot.state.tx.us
• [phone]
• Kevin Thibault
• Assistant Secretary, Engineering and Operations
  FDOT
• Steering Committee Vice Chair
• kevin.thibault_at_dot.state.fl.us
• [phone]

23
Keys Contacts

• Mike Akridge
• Deputy State Traffic Engineer, FDOT
• TAC Chair
• Michael.akridge_at_dot.state.fl.us
• [phone]
• Steve Glascock
• ITS Manager, LDOT
• TAC Vice Chair
• StephenGlascock_at_dotd.louisiana.gov
• [phone]

24
Questions