50
Greater Houston Freight Committee June 18, 2019
Greater Houston Freight Committee
June 18, 2019
Introduction/Welcome
▪ Established in 2016 by the Transportation Policy Council (TPC)
as recommended in the 2013 Regional Goods Movement Plan
as well as guidance from the FAST Act.
▪ Regularly engage and convene freight industry/goods
movement partners in the region to understand how best to
maintain an on-going conversation.
▪ Involve private sector freight generators, shippers, and other
logistics professionals.
▪ Meet periodically to share information, make
recommendations to the TPC, and assist/direct H-GAC staff in
freight planning tasks.
Introduction/Welcome
▪GHFC Structure
▪ TPC Nominating Chair recommended reappointment of
current co-chairs, Brian Fielkow and Ed Emmett, to be
confirmed at June 28th
TPC meeting
▪Meeting Frequency
▪ Priorities
4
Committee Agenda Roundtable
▪ Houston Region Freight Rail Study
▪ Truck Parking Study
▪ TxDOT PEL Studies Updates
• IH-10: IH-69 to SH-99 (Phase 1 Complete)
• IH-45: BW 8 North to Loop 336 South (Phase
1 Complete)
• IH-69: Spur 527 to BW 8 South (Phase 1
Complete)
• SH-225 (Procurement Phase)
▪ North Houston Highway Improvement
Project
• Development of Freight Movement Advisory
Group
▪ 36A EIS Update
▪ Southeast Harris County Mobility Study
▪ Others?
Distracted Driving Roundtable Overview
36A Project Update
36A PROJECTGreater Houston Freight Committee Update
June 18, 2019
36A Project - Background
▪ Houston-Galveston Area Council
– High level regional studies indicated a need
to route traffic (truck, hurricane evacuation,
etc.) around the urban core
– Identified in the 2040 Regional
Transportation Plan
– H-GAC committed funding for initial phase
of this study
▪ TxDOT – Houston District
– Conduct the study
– Study will follow the Federal environmental
process (NEPA)
36A Project
▪ Roadway project
▪ Limits: I-69 southwest of Rosenberg
to SH 6 north of Hempstead
▪ Engineering and Environmental study
– Defines the Need and Purpose
– Develops alternative alignments
• Existing routes
• New location routes
– Refines alignments
• Based on:
» Public Involvement
» Engineering analysis
» Environmental constraints
– Selects Reasonable Alternatives
Rosenberg
Hempstead
Constraints:
❑ Existing Development
❑ Proposed Development
❑ Floodplains
❑ Wetlands / Water resources
❑ Katy Prairie & KPC lands
❑ Park and School properties
❑ Historic sites and properties
❑ EJ communities
❑ Other issues
36A Project – Constraints
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Process
Preliminary Alternatives
Constraints:
❑ Existing Development
❑ Proposed Development
❑ Floodplains
❑ Wetlands / Water resources
❑ Katy Prairie & KPC lands
❑ Park and School properties
❑ Historic sites and properties
❑ EJ communities
❑ Other issues
Preliminary Alternatives – South of I-10 and North of I-10
Stakeholders:
▪ Elected Officials
▪ Public Officials
▪ Special Interest
Groups
▪ General Public
▪ Landowners
▪ Resource Agencies
.
Continuous Outreach:
❑ One-on-one Meetings
❑ Stakeholder Meetings
❑ On-site Visits
❑ Public Meetings
❑ Social Media
❑ Community Meetings
❑ Website and Phone
36A Project – Public Involvement
36A Project – Public Involvement – Project Website
36A Project – Public Involvement – Project Viewer Tool
36A Project – Anticipated Timeline
2017 202220202018 2019 2021
Project Initiation & NOI
Public Scoping Meeting
Develop Alternatives
Public Meeting
Refine Alternatives
Recommended Alternative
Prepare Draft EIS
Public Hearing
Prepare Final EIS
Record of Decision
2023
18
TxDOT Project Manager:
Cesar Martinez, TxDOT Houston District
[email protected] or 713-802-5279
Team Project Manager:
David Gornet, P.E., Jacobs/Gornet JV
[email protected] or 713-542-8524
For More Information:
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov or contact TxDOT-Houston District Public Information Office by
email at [email protected] or call 713-802-5076.
Project Contact Information
Thank You
Ports Area Mobility Study Update
Agenda
▪ Project Recap
• Objectives and
• Activities
▪ Project Deliverable Status
▪ Proposed Improvements
Study Objectives
▪ Identify freight and goods supply chains that are dependent
upon on the region’s port facilities
▪ Identify improvements to better facilitate port related freight
mobility:
• Infrastructure and facilities
• Multimodal improvements
• Operational strategies
• Policy-level changes
Study Activities
▪ Port profiles (complete)
▪ Rail Assessment (complete)
▪ Barge/Intracoastal Waterways Assessment
(complete)
▪Data gathering and analysis
• Trade and cargo flow (complete)
• Truck counts (complete)
• Truck driver surveys (complete)
• ATRI Truck GPS (complete)
Study Activities
▪ Supply Chain Analysis (complete)
• Transearch Dataset
• Datamyne and
• Third-party Interviews
▪ Improvements Identification (complete)
▪ Travel Demand Modeling (on-going)
▪ Benefit-Cost Assessment (on-going)
Project Deliverables
▪ Final Report consisting of Technical Memorandums:
• Port Profiles
• Rail
• Barge/Intracoastal Waterways
• Highways
• Supply Chain
• Commodity Flows
• Solutions and Strategies
Proposed Improvements
• Identified range of solutions and strategies that support
o Infrastructure and facilities
o Multimodal improvements
o Operational strategies
o Policy-level changes
• Strategies include
o Extended gate times at container terminals
o Terminal Gate Appointment System
o Inland Port
o Port centric warehousing etc.
Proposed Improvements
• Solutions include
o Freight Shuttle
oSelf discharge container on barge
oVirtual container yard
o I-69 bypass
o Independence Parkway Bridge
Freight Shuttle
▪ MOU signed with Port of Houston
▪ Third party system – similar to rail and
pipelines
• Using air rights above highways
• Private investment
• Local, regional, state, federal funding
▪ Assessed different options for PAMS:
• Shared User facility in Baytown
• Door-to-Door service (links container ports with
volume users – resin packaging plants, importers
Ikea, Walmart etc.)
Source: Freight Shuttle Systems
▪ Intra-regional
• Feed Cedar Port
from Bayport and
Barbours Cut.
Container-on-Barge
Existing barge facility
Concentration of warehouses that export/import containersWalmart, Ikea, KatoenNatie (plastic resins)
Container-on-barge
▪ Currently once a week service to each container terminal
• Low frequency impacts container demurrage, acceptance time for exports, etc
▪ Significant benefits with Heavy weight containers.
▪ How can container on barge service attract more volume and increase frequency?
1. Operations.
• More reliable operations at the container terminal - Dedicated area/berth within terminals?
• Cheaper cargo handling methods? – Reach Stacker?
• Labor agreement to account for handling a barge rather than ocean going vessel
2. Soft sell
• Integrate within Shipping Line pricing structure
• Multi agency approach and business development to potential users
▪ Could it become a formal service offering at Houston?
Container moves1 x Import to Walmart1 x Export from Plantgistix4 truck trips • 2 carrying cargo• 2 empty• 59 truck miles
Existing Situation
Virtual Container Yard
Container moves1 x Import to WalmartEmpty container fromWalmart taken toPlantgistix
1 x Export from Plantgistix
3 truck trips • 2 carrying cargo• 1 empty• 36.5 truck miles
• 50% reduction of trips to the port terminal• 38% saving in truckmiles
“Street turn” Concept
Future Condition
Virtual Container Yard
I -69 Bypass
• Relief route around Houston Urban
Core
• Connecting Wharton on the
southwest to Cleveland/Livingston
on the northeast
• Carrying traffic from Port of
Freeport, Port of Galveston, Port of
Houston to east, northeast and the
north
• Grand Parkway and Route 146 as
potential alignment
Independence Parkway Bridge
Port Truck Trip Calculator
▪ Forecast truck trips to
2045
• At Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZ) level
• Based on 2016
Transearch
commodity data
• Used to inform
modelling
Port Truck Trip Calculator
Next Steps..
▪Cost – Benefit Analysis
▪ Finalize Technical Memorandums
Contracting for a Cleaner Region
H-GAC Clean Vehicles Program
Heavy Duty Diesel Replacements
▪ Clean Vehicles Program
• Class 8 trucks
• Alternative fuel fueling stations
▪ Regional Texas Emission Reduction Program
• Class 8 trucks
• Marine (ferries)
• Nonroad equipment
▪ Drayage Loan Program
• Class 8 trucks
▪ Other
• SEP funds – School buses
• EPA funds – Construction equipment, marine (tugs), forklifts
• Clean School Bus Program – School bus (emphasis on alt fuel)
Air Quality Initiatives Report
65 98 21 7 38 21
0 50 100 150 200 250NOx Reductions (in tons) = 250 or $5,000,000
2016 Annual NOx Reductions: Clean FleetsClean Vehicles Non-Drayage Projects Clean Vehicles Drayage Projects Clean School Bus Program
Non-Road Clean Vessels and Equipment Regional TERP Drayage Projects Regional TERP Local Government Projects
99 71 13 58 24 13 3
0 50 100 150 200 250
NOx Reductions (in tons) = 281 or $5,620,000
2017 Annual NOx Reductions: Clean FleetsClean Vehicles Non-Drayage Projects Clean Vehicles Drayage Projects Clean School Bus Program
Non-Road Clean Vessels and Equipment Regional TERP: Drayage Projects Regional TERP: Local Government Projects
115 87 19 62 28 7 6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
NOx Reductions (in tons) = 324 or $6,480,000
2018 Annual NOx Reductions: Clean FleetsClean Vehicles Nondrayage Projects Clean Vehicles Drayage Projects Clean School Bus Program
Nonroad Clean Vessels and Equipment Regional TERP: Drayage Projects Regional TERP: Local Government Projects
Results (Drayage Loan Program and TERP)
36
59 50
41 41 46 36
26
3 9
67 80 74 80 77 75
10 10
42
90 98
90 100 96 91
11
50
101
218 232
242 251
242
202 192
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
YEAR
NOx Reduction (tons)
TERP
CMAQ
Drayage
HDDRP
Engines
▪ Drayage Loan Program
• Contracted with 67 owner / operators and 29 trucking companies.
• Issued $15,000,000 in grant funds and $11,500,000 in loan funds to replace 217 trucks.
• Contracted to obtain 1,050 tons of NOx emission reduction.
Lessons Learned
▪ 7 Year Monitoring Period:
• Too lengthy for owner operators
• Unpredictable market may require substantial grant returns
▪ GPS Monitoring:
• Original budget too weak for accuracy
• Limited Staff
▪ Communication:
• Bi-lingual (Spanish) a must
• Speed of circulation of main documents
• “Snail Mail” is no longer an assured means of communication
Clean Vehicles Program - Nutshell
▪ Replace Class 7 and 8 diesel powered trucks
▪Own and destroy the “donor” vehicle
• 1996 to 2005 works best
▪ Purchase new vehicle
▪H-GAC reimbursement “up to” 75%
Clean Vehicles Program - Improvements
▪Contract circulation via Agiloft
• Applicant MUST HAVE a working and active e-mail
• Quarterly reports and other communication through e-mail
▪Monitoring period is tiered to 3, 4, or 5 years
• Prevent repayment by extending to years 6 and 7
• Usage commitment based on average yearly usage from
odometer reading
▪GPS will mainly be used for troubled projects
▪Usage reporting via on-line website
Clean Vehicles Program - Further
▪Other eligible projects
• Non-Road equipment
• Infrastructure
▪ Emphasis on Alternative Fuels
• Funding cap increases from $20K to $40K per ton of NOx
reduction
• New truck waiver to “slightly used” repowered
H-GAC Clean Vehicles Program
E-Mail:
713-993-2488
~or~
Visit the H-GAC website at:
H-gac.com
(Business ---> Clean Vehicles ---> Clean Vehicle Program)
Regional Goods Movement Plan
▪ Update to the 2013 Regional Goods
Movement Plan
▪ Regional Goods Movement Today
• Freight System in the MPO area
• Freight Significant Corridors and
Facilities
• Commodity Flow Patterns
• Key Industries
▪ Key Trends
• Employment/Population Growth
• International Trade
• Supply Chains
• Transportation Industry Trends
• Regulations and Policy
▪ Key Issues and Challenges
• Growth outpacing capacity
• Managing Existing Capacity
• Community & Environmental Issues
▪ Solutions and Recommendations
• Short Term
• Long Term
Legislative Update
▪ Impacts of State Bill 2223
• Effective 9/1/2019
▪Others?
Freight Activities from Committee
Committee members may briefly discuss current
and future freight transportation efforts
Adjourn
Thank you!
