I-10 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 aren’t 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@dot.state.tx.us (512) 305-9501 Kevin Thibault Assistant Secretary, Engineering and Operations FDOT Steering Committee Vice Chair kevin.thibault@dot.state.fl.us (850) 414-5220

23. Keys Contacts Mike Akridge Deputy State Traffic Engineer, FDOT TAC Chair Michael.akridge@dot.state.fl.us (850) 410-5607 Steve Glascock ITS Manager, LDOT TAC Vice Chair StephenGlascock@dotd.louisiana.gov (225) 379-2516

24. Questions